As reported in the Boston Herald, a Rasmussen Reports poll released today shows that Sarah Palin is in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. This poll belies all the liberal media pundits who declared last week that Sarah Palin had severely hurt her political career with her resignation from the Alaska governorship.
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin appears to have a loyal base of supporters that stand by her despite all the negative press thrown her way.
Rasmussen polled likely Republican voters in the 2012 election. The results are below:
Mitt Romney: 25%
Sarah Palin: 24%
Mike Huckabee: 22%
New Gingrich: 14%
Since the poll has a 5% margin of error, the race for the GOP nomination in 2012 is essentially a tie among Palin, Romney, and Huckabee.
Also, among the candidates, Sarah Palin has the highest favorability rating at 76%. Romney had a 73% rating.
The poll also showed a lot of optimism among Republicans regarding the next presidential election. 75 percent of voters believe a GOP candidate could beat Obama. 41 percent thought Obama’s defeat was “very likely.”
You can see the full results here.
It is WAY too early for polls to mean anything. We’re 3+ years away from the next election. Three years before 2008, Obama was a no-name Senator who had little to no chance of beating Hillary Clinton. So, we’ll see how Palin does in the next couple of years.
However, there is no denying that she has a loyal following that will be with her no matter what CNN or MSNBC says about her.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I hope she gets the nomination, that way Obama won’t have to spend much time getting re-elected. Maybe you could add Rush as VP and the GOP can stay home on November 4th. Saves on gas, poll crowding and ballot paper.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I just want to bring out my top 10 best republicans for 2012. And no this is not who I think will win the nomination. This is simple who I think would both the best president and the best guy to go against obama in 2012.
!0. Tim Pawlenty now I know we all remember this wannabe. Remember he spent all of last summer going talk show to state. I began to think of him not as Mccain’s apprentice the way he supported him and went against obama. Now I always knew Mccain wouldn’t put him as VP. Just because he was like that kid in the playground at school who wants to be a big shot, but everyone just laughs at him when he tries. And he’s to much of a moderate to fix up obama mess.
9. Rick Perry of Texas although I think he’s doing a great job as governor I’m putting him petty low on the lit, because I think he’s going to lose his position as governor in the primaries. He also is in his early 60s now so I don’t think he has much of a shot if he runs, buy I just want everyone to remember he is a great governor.
8. Now I know a lot of people reading this will disagree with me hear, but I’m going to say Sarah Palin. Now first off I only once said I would vote for her in the primaries and that was actually before Mccain picked her. And I still think she was a pretty good pick for VP. Yet being a three year governor that quit the job is not good. And she’ll be destroyed by the press.
7. Condi Rice would be a pretty good pick I think, but she’s considered a moderate. And my God what killed Mccain was being to much like Bush so not a very good pick for 2012. Yet she does have a lot of much needed experience.
6. Mitt Romney was a great governor,thinks with a business like attitude, and I like most parts of his healthcare plan. Now his skills will only be useful if were still in a Recession by 2012. And looking at obama that is pretty obvious. Yet the Mormon factor is why I’m putting him at number six. Also I know a flip flopper who will do anything to be president when I see one.
5. Newt Gingrich is according to me a genius. Yet his biggest problem is he’s on his third wife. That is a huge problem especially, because she was the women he had an affair with as Speaker. Yet with a couple good new ideas, reminding people of the greatness of the republican house and senate.
4. Now if republicans are going to pick a women I would advise picking Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She’s a very strong conservative,very experienced, and she’ll probably become Governor in 2010. Which this puts her in a great spot for 2012. Yet she will need to get more momentum built or she’ll have no shot in 2012.
3. Mike Huckabee simple because he’s well like by everyone in the U.S.
And even if you don’t agree with him on the issues and would never vote for him. You still say he’s a nice man and you would be proud to have a guy with his character as president. Also he’s a bigger conservative than Mitt Romney. And the Fair tax is what republicans need to get back in business.
2. Bobby Jindal why because he’s young,experienced,smart, conservative, and a very popular governor. Having the youngest president would really help us back. He would win a lot of the “Slumdog Millionaire” vote. He is a huge supporter of increased oil and natural gas production. He has the right idea on what the party should be doing right now. I would vote for him in the primaries, but I want someone who supports the Fair Tax.
1. Gary Johnson now just to inform everyone hear. He owns a construction company,he served as the two term governor of New Mexico, never once raised taxes, cut taxes, privatized prisons, cut 1000 state jobs, and he balanced the budget. He has mainly Ron Paul ideas, but he is sane. So I would advise everyone to really look at this guy. And trust me I doubt he’ll win the nomination, but I think out of all of them he would be the best president.
So overall I think every single republican hear could beat obama.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I do agree that it’s way too early for these polls to mean anything.
@charles: I’m glad to hear you voice support for Gary Johnson. He’s a small-government pragmatist who is as bothered by the drug war as he is by the stimulus package. I’d like to think he has a chance, but in the end I think he tells the truth a little too much to make it big.
I do have to say that questioning Ron Paul’s sanity isn’t exactly fair. The guy’s a heck of a lot more true to his vision than McCain or Palin or whoever else. Since when was believing in personal liberty an indication of mental instability?
July 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Rhayader:
Well I think he’s sane no question, but when I told my dad I was considering voting for Ron Paul in the primaries he said that old nut job. I mean I think Ron Paul is a very smart man, but I think it’s his voice. I mean it sounds like the Joker almost. I think Johnson will do better than Paul, because he’ll get the Ron Paul cult and those people who said Paul’s crazy and now they realize if he was president we wouldn’t have these problems. Also Johnson has a lot more money than Paul so they might be able to pull off a couple of states. My hope is they make him VP or secretary of treasury.
Now I don’t think it’s to late for Johnson to win this thing if he starts campaigning now. I’m talking about going on Beck,trying to get campaign for republicans in Congress, and try to show the wold a libertarian republican. I mean I saw him give a speech for Ron Paul he seems to have charisma which Paul lacked.
Overall I would rather have Sanford in office than obama no question.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Romney and Palin in 2012. I will be campaigning to help them reach the White House.
Obama has become an obamanation. Ouch. What’s up with that stimulous? And, should I just direct deposit my paycheck into the Tax and Spend bank of Washington.
It is time for radical change.
Romney and Palin in 2012.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The economy took 5 years to break under Bush, it was one of the worst crises in American history. It’s not going to fix itself in a few months. Obama is doing most of the right things. The economy will slowly recover from the republican nightmare – hey – aren’t conservatives supposed to be the good ones with the economy?
July 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
I’m an conservative independent, I’m not much aware of the New Mexico former governor, but I really like the idea of a fiscally conservative government (balancing the budget is one of the few things a government can directly control). As far as governing, its foolish to say that Obama’s government is running the budget into the ground and that the Republicans didn’t do the same thing. Both the Bush adminstration, especially when it had a Republican majority and now the Obama administration have done a bad job with the budget. Bush gave tax cuts without corresponding cuts in govt spending, started wars (one of which I think was unneccessary) without a plan to pay for them, started the TARP bailout debacle ($400B), and pushed through an expensive Medicare Prescription drug plan ($700B+) right before the 2004 election (knowing the elderly is the demographic with the highest voter turn out). However Obama’s stimulus plan had very little stimulus and was hugely expensive pork barrel so he has started off very wrong too. One of the most disturbing trends of both parties is the huge deficit spending in the current fiscal year with fairy tale numbers in the out years showing the deficit and debt will somehow magically decrease. The other issue was that the latest financial meltdown was not attributed by either party correctly, it cause was greed and debt! We would not have this problem if Americans (consumers, businesses and govt) learned that debt, regardless of reason, is a bad idea!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Yeah Charles, I would love to see Johnson start really getting his name out there. I never vote along party lines — though I tend to end up with the Democraps because I hate social conservatism. But putting Johnson in there, with a good running mate, would certainly get me to vote GOP.
I think there is already a growing libertarian reaction to Obama’s spending, and putting in a guy like Johnson would be a great way to pull some of the moderates over to the other side.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Jeff:
Well first off I am by no means a Bush republican. Yet at least when Bush raised the deficit it was because taxes were low. Now obama is raising taxes and were getting hire deficits every year. Now Reagan had deficits, but that was because taxes were really low and we collapsed the Soviet Union. Now when republicans first took control of congress we had a surplus. Now I would give Clinton some credit, but he had a large spending agenda that didn’t get passed through congress. Also Clintons military cuts caused 9/11 and he spent most of his second term with Monica.
Now the reason why I like Johnson is because I know his ideas and the Ron Paul ideas. Also because he supports the Gold Standard we’ll probably end all the deficits.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Clintons military cuts caused 9/11
Hah, I think that may be a bit of an oversimplification. I would say the attackers had the largest hand in “causing” 9/11.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Well that and the fact he spent most of his second term with Monica.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Well that and the fact he spent most of his second term with Monica.
That sounds more like conjecture than anything else. My guess is that the President — any President — spends the most time carrying out his official job duties, no matter what his sex life entails.
I’m not trying to defend Clinton necessarily. But saying that he “caused” 9/11, and that he “spent most of his time” with an intern that he nailed sounds a little off-target.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Of course those that are “hands on” are directly responsible and it wasnt necessarily the military cuts that caused 911, but on Clintons part more a dereliction of duty combined with apathetic complacency. After the Cole, the embassies and the first trade tower attack on his watch, military or not he would of done nothing, as we all know damn well is true. Had pulled his head out of his a$$ (or someone elses) and given Osama a little more of wake up call besides the “for expedient sake missles” he sent 911 very well could of never happened.
Jeb wont run, if he does hes a fool. I seriously doubt the country, love or hate the Bushs, will want to be going the way of dynasties. In about 2 years were all going to be so sick of whats no doubt the farthest left this countrys ever been taken the knee jerk reaction from the people is going to be to repair the damage done by such far left extremism is go extremem right. We’ll probably dig up Ronald Reagan and reanimate/frankenstein him back to life, make Ted Nugent his running mate and put em on a ticket.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Sorry, the jeb portion was meant for the other thread. Oh well.
My puter is so fricken slow my fury has me blowin it
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Rhayader:
Well listen the US I think should have 1,000,000 troops,a missile defense shield”star wars”,and nukes. Why? Because if we do we’ll never have to use any of these items ever. This is why Ron Paul lost I agree with him the US should offer peace and we shouldn’t get involved in other countries issues, but when it’s an issue like Iran an unstable country getting a nuke or North Korea saying were going to wipe the US off the map we have the right to respond and act. Now I support a Federal Government where all we spend money on is the army and border control. We spend lets say a trillion dollars every year and we have a national sales tax at let’s say 15% if that sounds right to you. And because of our massive military nobody ever messes with us. Why because no country in history has ever started a war with a country that could easily beat them. And the reason why I didn’t vote for Paul in the primaries was, because Mccain was right that his idea of isolating the US would lead us to WW3. And some countries and people don’t want peace. They just are angry that we have money,freedom,and a stable government.
And to what you said Bush in office for only nine months and I meant he spent most of his time trying to keep himself from being impeached.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:19 am
@Micky: I get what you’re saying, and go ahead and dis the guy for his handling of the military. I’m just saying, let’s not point to Clinton and say he “caused” it, any more so than we do with Bush. To me, Bin Laden is the guy who caused the attacks. If you ask people over there, they might attribute it to our “decadent western greed” or whatever. My point is that the issue is far too complex to simply blame Clinton because he wasn’t a hawk.
@Charles: Yeah again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a capable national defense, or diplomats who understand the issues at hand. That stuff is all very important, you’re right. I was simply trying to point out that saying Clinton “caused” 9/11 leaves out about 95% of the story.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Rhayader.
Still, theres greater cause on Clinton than say the memo Bush missed or ignored.
Like I said in the beginning of my last statement of course its the guy who pulled the trigger thats the ultimate cause.
But no one will ever convince me that Clinton didnt have more opportunity than any other pres to stop from happening what happened.
His time with Monica proably didnt take one tenth as much time as his daily jogs, sure all presidents dont have their eye on the ball 24/7.
But come on.
They already tried to topple the towers once, bombed our Navy killing 17 and two embassies and all he did was launch a few missiles that did nothing, then went and bombed Bosnia.
Ob Bushs watch, the first time they f*cked with us he sent the whole damn possy and lit their a$$es up like never before. And there wasnt one attack on American soil or interests abroad since then. And now with another liberal in charge what happens ? A radical Muslim shoots two of our soldiers on our soil, killing one.
Hawks are better for security, always have been.
Soon as we nailed Saddam, Lybia disarmed.
Soon as reagan was inaugurated, hostages were set free.
The world knows the difference
July 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
“If you ask people over there, they might attribute it to our “decadent western greed”
Oh come on, you still buy into that ?
Look, the Radicals use that mantra as means to put a justification on their hatred for anything not of Islam. Otherwise they’d be hitting targets closer to home like Dubai where theres an intense amount of breed represented by Arab Muslims.
Mainstream Muslims dont really give a sh*t what we do with how much money. Many Islamic blessing are laced with wishs for those to prosper.
That “American greed” thing is all a bunch of sh*t. Our “greed” is what finances half the crap in their countries, be it of radical intention or straight up commerce.
Then theres the hypocrites who say that we shouldnt have so much but if they had more of what we have they probably wouldnt be terrorists and that its our fault for the oppresion that breeds terrorism.
Bla bla bla yeah right.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:21 am
“Dubai where theres an intense amount of breed represented by Arab Muslims.”
Sorry, I’m sure they breed but I meant “greed”
July 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Oh no, I wasn’t saying I buy that “greed” stuff — personally I think greed (or whatever you want to call it) is a part of human nature that should be understood rather than denied. That’s why real capitalism works better than other systems — it accepts and reflects human nature.
I was just trying to point out that a profound event like 9/11 cannot be reduced to a single “cause” because there are so many different players and perspectives.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Micky:
As much as I know you hate me your right on what your saying right now.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I’d just like to ask Charles what exactly is the “Mormon Factor”? You said that you put Romney at number 6 in your own personal poll “simply because of the Mormon Factor” but what you should have really said is : “I’m putting Romney at number 6 simply because I am a biggot and totally ignorant towards another persons faith.” If you actually knew anything about Mormons you wouldnt have any issues with them. I guess you’re one of the many people who believe everything they are told. I bet you’ve never been to a Mormon church service before just to check it out. You probably get all your info from your minister or sunday school teachers or anti mormon books who claim to be telling the truth but actually arent. You know, a hundred years ago they said that if you rubbed the head of a black person it was good luck…..do you really want to fall into the catagory of one of those ignorant people who believe whatever they hear? It’s really annoying that I feel that I almost have to apologize for my faith to people who obviously know nothing about us. Do me a favor and read the actual official sunday school lesson manual from the Mormon church….not to be converted but just to educate yourself
July 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@MB: By “the Mormon factor”, couldn’t Charles have been talking about the obvious, documented political repercussions of the public declaration of that faith?
In other words, one can recognize that prejudice exists — and has real political consequences — without being personally prejudicial. I can discuss the chances of a black person running for governor of Missouri without being rac*st.
By the way, your lack of subtlety and poor writing style sort of undermine your accusations of ignorance on the part of Charles.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
MB:
Well by the mormon factor I mean he will have an enormous amount of trouble down South. Granted obama being black will keep Mitt Romney safe down there, but in Florida,Virginia,and North Carolina he’s screwed. Granted the only reason why Mccain lost those three was the economy and Romney’s good at that. Also this blog I wrote was made so I can say who I think would make the best president also who would beat obama. And Mitt Romney did as governor cut taxes yet at the same time raised things like the gas tax or he did raise the fee for putting adds on rhodes from $200 to $2000 so although he has some conservative ideas like getting rid of the Department of Education or cutting taxes. Also I will not vote for him, because in the 08 campaign he only promised to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax and a middle class tax cut. Now that’s a million times better than obama, but to me we need and across the board tax cut on the poor and wealthy. Why because giving the middle class money is nice, but if you want to seriously create jobs give the wealthy a tax cut. Also consider him and Newt Gingrich a tie. And I also feel that Romney doesn’t have any new ideas like Huckabee or Johnson. And by the way I would just like to mention Huckabee is more conservative than Romney.
Now I’m going to tell you what I think will happen assuming they don’t change how the primaries worked in 08. Well Huckabee will win Iowa do to his support of Ethanol and strong Evangelical support which that’s what I hate about him not that I’m against Evangelicals, but the God squad republican party has to end. Now do to Mitt Romney being the former governor of MA he should win NH. Now the state of SC will be anyones game to me. So that’s where we would probably see a lot of focus from people who were not in 2012 like Jindal,Gingrich,Johnson,and Pawlenty. If Palin decides not to run in 2012 not only would Huckabee easily win Iowa and will get all the evangelical support and Kay Bailey Hutchinson being one of the only conservative republican women would run realizing she could pull off a victory from getting the women vote. Charlie Crist is far to liberal and his green agenda will prevent drilling so he’ll get destroyed and will probably give up after he comes in last place at Iowa. So Florida will most likely go to Jindal if he can keep a strong campaign going there and remind people of Gustav. So overall the five biggest 2012 players in the primaries will be in no order.
Bobby Jindal: Get college,spanish,asian,black, and conservative republicans if he raises enough money in the campaign. Will most likely pull off a victory in NY,Florida,Mississippi assuming Haley Barbour doesn’t run, and Texas if Hutchinson doesn’t run or backs down. And he could appeal to catholic republicans.
Mitt Romney: He’ll probably get most of the vote he got in 08. Yet some conservatives who voted for him will probably go for Jindal, Gingrich, and Hutchinson.
Mike Huckabee: Well now that he’s a national figure he’ll be giving a lot more time in the debates than in 08. The Fair Tax is catching on rapidly which would help him out overall. Yet I would really hate another God squad republican in office. Even though I like the majority of his ideas that aren’t having to do with Jesus. Also other religious republicans such as Jindal could steal some votes.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Conservative,experienced,smart(not to insult Palin in any way),and a women. So overall I think she can win if she has a really effective campaign. Yet her Pro-Choice stance could lead to problems down south.
Newt Gingrich: Overall he’ll have the most problems with the bloggers like me and the left wing media assuming Palin doesn’t run. Yet still he could gather some support from older republicans.
Now this is just my own personal belief of what will happen. Yet I really don’t know who’s going to win the nomination it’s still way to soon for me to get any predictions going. Yet I will say I think California will be the deciding state.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Charles, I’d love to get along with you better and do agree with many of your positions also.
Butcha gotta lose the rac*al overtones man.
I’ve been all over this country and arts of the world, live in hawaii, the most diverse state on the planet. Every r*ce/culture has its qualities. Some are learned behvior, cultural aspects handed down, some are character traits resulting from instances in life not of their fault, some traits are just plain ignorance. But I’ve yet to see a mans skin color make him what he his from the day he was born but rather the influences upon that clean slate we call “infants”.
I came to America from Denmark when I was three, on a freightliner. It was all we could afford. I knew nothing of rac*sm til I was about 6 living in Florida. The first time I remember seeing black people I was 6. I was freaked out. They looked, talked, acted and moved differently. I was scared of them.
We had “tomatoe boys” in Florida which were poor plantation workers who went door to door selling tomatoes. My mom used to let me pick out the tomatoes. After a while the differences and fear werent there anymore, the tomatoe boys and I became friends.
Our landlord, some fat disgusting white guy came out of his house one day and chased these kids away with a shot gun, screaming at em, calling en ni**ers abd sh*t. F*ckin broke my heart. I was told by him from then on I had to meet the tomatoe boys out on the street. The next day I bought all the tomatoe boys tomatoes and threw them all at out landlords house.
We got kicked out, my dad bought me a bike.
Theres a lotta sh*tty people out there that deserve to be called alot of names but not those that go to their ethnicity and you make us look like the ammo the left wants to use against us when you say the things you say.
I’ve had three black girlfriends in my life.
Three of the most beautuful women I’ve ever seen. I’m talking drop dead gorgeous by all standards. Trust me, theres a lot more benefits to diversity than there are draw backs