2012 Poll Watch – National GOP Polls

Loading

First up on deck, the Rasmussen poll taken between May 9th and the 15th with a sample of 3,500 likely voters:

“In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between a Republican candidate and Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for the Republican candidate or Democrat Barack Obama?”

  • Republican Candidate 45%
  • Barack Obama 43%

Big note here, this was taken post-Osama kill….that bounce was very short lived it seems. Also note that it’s a poll of “likely voters” which is much better then just “adults” Still, a lead of 2% isn’t good news. Republican field is far from settled, as you will see in the below polls, so it will be interesting to watch this poll over time.

Next up, the Suffolk University National GOP Poll (PDF) taken between May 10th and the 17th. There is a lot in this poll so check out the PDF for yourself but here are some of the things I found interesting:

Q16. Do you feel the country is headed in the right direction or is on the wrong track?

  • Right direction…..33%
  • Wrong track……..57%
  • Undecided……….10%

Q17. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

  • Approve…….47%
  • Disapprove…45%
  • Undecided…. 8%

Q18. Do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected or is it time to give someone else a chance?

  • Deserve reelect…..43%
  • Someone else……..48%
  • Undecided…………..8%

Again, that post-Osama kill bounce is fading.

Before Huckabee and Trump dropped out the numbers laid out like so:

  • Mitt Romney – 17%
  • Mike Huckabee – 15%
  • Sarah Palin – 10%
  • Newt Gingrich – 9%
  • Rudy Giuliani – 6%
  • Donald Trump – 5%
  • Michele Bachmann – 4%
  • Mitch Daniels – 4%
  • Ron Paul – 4%
  • Herman Cain – 3%
  • Tim Pawlenty – 2%
  • Rick Santorum – 2%
  • Jon Huntsman – *
  • Gary Johnson – *
  • Buddy Roemer – *

To gauge where the Huckabee and Trump voters support went to after they dropped out they called back those voters…and:

  • Romney – 29%
  • Palin – 16%
  • Giuliani – 10%
  • Pawlenty – 8%
  • Santorum – 6%
  • Paul – 4%
  • Bachmann – 2%
  • Cain – 2%
  • Daniels – 2%
  • Gingrich – 2%
  • Huntsman – *
  • Johnson – *
  • Roemer – *

Which pretty much shows that the support went to either Romney or Palin. They then consolidated those numbers (still not sure how they did this, anyone know?)

  • Romney – 20%
  • Palin – 12%
  • Gingrich – 9%
  • Huckabee – 8%
  • Giuliani – 7%
  • Paul – 5%
  • Bachmann – 4%
  • Cain – 4%
  • Daniels – 4%
  • Pawlenty – 3%
  • Santorum – 3%
  • Trump – 1%

Like I said, not sure how they did the consolidating. Newt was at 9%, went down to 2% but consolidated back up to 9….see what I mean?

Either way, another somewhat good showing for Romney but I wouldn’t charactize it like the Suffolk people did:

“With Huckabee and Trump out of the race, the whole dynamic has changed,” said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Boston’s Suffolk University. “Romney is the clear front-runner now; that’s a position he’ll have to be prepared to defend over the coming months.”

Uh, clear front runner with 20%? And that’s over a name that isn’t even in the race. I think one thing these polls highlight is the lack of name recognition for many of these “candidates.” But all that will be solved once the real campaigning and the debates start.

Getting even further into one scenario is Allah:

What if Palin jumps in and instantly siphons off the bulk of support from “true conservative” all-stars like Bachmann and Herman Cain? The elites will go into panic mode and look to rally around a single centrist-type candidate in hopes of heading her off, but there are potentially four prominent governors in the race capable of filling that role — Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman. How will the establishment choose one and then clear out the rest in order to pose a clear “Palin/Not Palin” choice for primary voters? The answer, presumably, lies with New Hampshire. If the winner in Iowa looks like he/she could sweep all the way to the nomination, then the winner of the de facto centrist primary in NH will be anointed the best bet to stop them. If, as expected, that’s Romney, there’ll be tremendous pressure on the other three to drop out and endorse him before South Carolina, where the Iowa winner will have a social-conservative advantage. But then, precisely because the emphasis after Iowa will shift among the establishment towards stopping the winner of the caucuses, you may see a massive push on Pawlenty’s behalf before New Hampshire to make sure he wins and heads into South Carolina with a head of steam. He’s the guy regarded as most electable among the centrist four, I think, and electability will be at a premium if the results in Iowa throw a scare into the elites. So there’s T-Paw’s back-up plan in case he flames out in Iowa and disappoints everyone — sheer terror among Republicans that Romney or Daniels can’t stop the Iowa winner in South Carolina, even if one of them wins NH.

Let the fun begin!

Lastly we have Gallup:

  • Mitt Romney – 20%
  • Sarah Palin – 18%
  • Newt Gingrich – 11%
  • Ron Paul – 8%
  • Michele Bachmann – 5%
  • Mitch Daniels – 4%
  • Tim Pawlenty – 4%
  • Rick Santorum – 2%
  • Jon Huntsman – 2%
  • Gary Johnson – 1%
  • Herman Cain – *

Gallup summarizes the poll:

There is no clear front-runner in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Palin, who has given no indication of whether she will run for the nomination, has very high name identification, is near the top of Republicans’ nomination preferences, and has a higher Positive Intensity Score than any other well-known candidate. Palin thus must be considered one of the GOP leaders at this point. Romney and Gingrich are also well-known. Of the two, Romney is slightly better positioned at this point due to his higher ranking in Gallup’s trial heats.

None of these three, however, comes close to generating the positive intensity of Huckabee. Palin’s Positive Intensity Score, at 16, is slightly higher than Romney’s or Gingrich’s, but is nine points lower than Huckabee’s final May 2-15 score of 25.

…All other candidates and potential candidates Gallup tracks have name recognition below 50%. Only one of them, Cain, creates strong enthusiasm among those who recognize him.

While Palin has a 16 in their “Positive Intensity Score,” Cain has a 24. He can be a strong candidate if he can solve that name recognition thing.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Very interesting, but I still think it is too early to be pinning the tail on the donkey, elephant right now.

Romney is my least favorite candidate, but if he gets the nod, then I will hold my nose and vote for him.

imho Bachmann will get in real soon and shake things up a bit…

If she beats T-paw in Iowa he’s finished, and they LOVE her down there

I got a hunch she’s going to surprise a few people…

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2011/05/next-big-thing-to-shake-up-race-michele.html

Let’s recall that Sarah Palin has said she will run “if no other conservative candidates step up”, or words to that effect. Neither she nor I consider Romney to be a conservative, so it it looks like Romney will be the nominee, I predict she’ll jump in.

If Michelle Bachmann jumps in, maybe Sara will sit on the sidelines. I’m sure the two of them are talking.

I continue to think a Joan of Arc candidate such as SP or MB as likely to run Mitt and TPaw out og the race. Cain would make a good VP for either.

A recent informal survey of 500 post-grads
primarily between the ages of 22 and 28
83 percent of whom voted for President Barack Obama in 2008
found just 27 percent of Obama’s previous youth supporters plan to vote for him again,
The Daily Caller reports.

That’s a drop of almost 60 points.

An 80 percent majority of those newly disillusioned by Obama said they would consider voting for a Republican in 2012, too.

This survey suggests a few of those kids who sported “Yes, we can” T-shirts two years ago have decided they’d like to try their own hand at “hope and change” by creating opportunities for themselves — and by voting out an administration that makes it harder to do that.

Ron Paul is the only real GOP candidate. Romney is a flip-flopping poll-sucker, and Palin is just bimbo. See here: Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul’s Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice?

@one true candidate:
Are you unaware of Ron Paul’s flip-flopping?
Here’s what he does:
He introduces pork-laden riders to major bills with rewards aplenty for his constituents in his own congressional district.
Then, when he is positive the major bill will pass, (and deliver that pork to his voters) he votes against it!
I guess that works great as long as your supporters are few.
But extrapolate that out to the entire country.
It is an unsustainable philosophy.
Ah, wait, Ron Paul has the solution: sell all of the gold in Fort Knox!

I just want to be able to work with out the Government makeing so much paperwork for me in my own business. It cost me more to do my taxes than a years worth of car payments. I want Ron Paul because he is for small Government and is willing to put the power of my life back in my hands.

Go RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Nan G:
Ron Paul puts earmarks on legislation that he opposes to put spending restrictions on thre federal government. It ensures that they must seek congressional approval before they can spend any money. It also ensures that no such money can be used for the United Nations. He then votes against the bills because he will not compromise American’s future for deals. Please research material before posting negative comments, don’t be as bad as bias media sources like msnbc and fox.

Fight Obesity, Government Spending and Civil Right Violations

Vote Ron Paul 2012

@Ted: You said:

Ron Paul puts earmarks on legislation that he opposes to put spending restrictions on thre federal government.

So he adds pork to a bill he is against, and this is to stop the Federal Government from spending?

Ron Paul hides behind his massive pork by saying that if he didn’t spend the money, someone else would. That is like saying, “Yeah, I robbed that bank, but if I didn’t someone else would have.”

Sheesh. He is a libertarian in all areas except where it comes to pork for his district. Put him in charge of the Treasury, we would be better off. But don’t defend him when there is no defense for his pork spending.

@Anticsrock:
D
Have you read the bills? I do, and most of the candidates votes over the course of their careers. Ron Paul adds so called Pork is dessigned to return the amount of federal taxes that have been taken from his district and return it. If only other political figures actually fought for the American people. Please I would like a specific piece of legislation showing where Ron Paul frivoulously spends American tax payers money. Give me the date it was voted on as well so I make look it up and read it. Maybe we should vote for the candidate that recieved $30,000 in government subsoties or the one who headed Al Gore’s campaign, or the one that enacted social healthcare or even had the 47th best state for job creation. There are no candidates with the credibility of Ron Paul period. PLEASE SHOW A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE AND PROVIDE A REFERENCE!

@Ted: First of all, I am not going to do your homework for you. I was not and am not speaking to a specific bill or slice of pork. It is well known that Paul brings a lot of pork home to his district. The fact that he spends tax dollars to benefit his district and then claims that, golly gee, SOMEONE has to spend it! – is ludicrous.

You said he puts pork on bills and then votes against the bills. Isn’t that just a tad convoluted? Why doesn’t he just introduce bills that contain the spending he wants, instead of this shell game?

It is easy to see that you are deep into defending this man. I have no problem with his fiscal policies in regards to the Federal Reserve System. As I said, he would make a great Sec. of the Treasury, a President, not so much. His foreign policy would be our undoing.

So relax, and go ahead and be a shill for Congressman Paul. It is admirable that you believe so fervently in him, but at some point you are in danger of wearing the tin foil hat…

: Tin foil hat, lol. If the bill passes he makes sure that the money is spent on naval training, ships and ports ect.. he is against the spending but if congress passes it, he makes sure that something constructive happens. I am not at all into believing politicians, I do my research and there is no other presidential candidate out there better then Ron Paul. My biggest concern in subsoties in our market. They have led to monopolies that have crossed into our biggest government agencies. They have made our food unhealthy, and so cheap the average american won’t eat natural foods. I work closely with farmers and the restraints our government puts on them is astonighing. Yet we barley inspect imported foods. The Usda allows genetically modified food to be sold unlabelled in our country, it allows foriegn farmers to sell products treated with ddt and other chemicals banned in the U.S. High Fructose Corn Syrup causes medibollic acedoces syndrome, it contains mercury, and it is are most widely used sweetener because government subsoties make it cheaper then sugar. Ron Paul wants to end all subsoties. Pawlenty wants to end corn subsoties. Romney wants to add more subsoties, and Bachman uses government subsoties. That is a big reason I vote Ron Paul. there are many others as well.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, the Libertarian-leaning contender for the Republican presidential nomination, long has waged war on the widespread federal spending he views as outside constitutional boundaries.

But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

Paul’s zeal for government spending is hardly unique. Despite pledges by leaders of both parties to crack down on the practice of slipping home-state projects into larger funding legislation, Houston-area lawmakers have submitted wish lists for several hundred earmarks, including money for a suburban arts museum, zoo programs, highway landscaping, and medical and transportation projects.
————–

Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

“I don’t think they should take our money in the first place,” he said. “But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.”

The way it works in Paul’s office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair “for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk.”

But in the end, Paul said, he would likely vote against the spending bills even if they included earmarks he sought

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4935311.html#ixzz1S8DD1rli

~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a fact.
This is what Ron Paul does.
He is practically deified by people who don’t know about him.

@Nan G: Thank you Nan! A voice of reason from our resident researcher extraordinaire.

Mr. Paul slings the pork and hides behind so-called libertarian ideals. The only area that he is libertarian in is fiscal policy as relates to the Fed.

As I stated, the title of Treasury Sec would fit him nicely; Commander in Chief, not so much. His crazy isolationist ideas would bring more harm to our country than it would prevent.

I am not for policing the world or starting wars willy-nilly, but in this day and age, I feel that America can ill-afford to become an island unto itself. That is just not a well thought out, intelligent argument. It used to be said that what was good for General Motors was good for America, I believe that what is good for America is good for the world.
.
.

last thing I will mention about earmarks is that they have become a huge focus to keep people from focusing on the real issue. We give the executive branch an allowance to spend federal taxes through legislation and earmarks are the only way to dictate to the executive branch how they can spend the money. Without them we are giving full reign to few beauracrats. I don’t agree with most of them but atleast Ron Paul tells you how he feels from day one. He is asked by the people of his district for government funding, he tells them he will vote against it but he will put it up to the congress for them. He is not gaining anything personally. Still we need to focus on federal taxes.

Next What is good for America is good for the world. That is crazy, after our destructive wars we try to bring democracy? We are a republic, we don’t we instill a constitution and teach people about civil liberties. We have allowed the CIA to hold mock elections, attempt assasinations, and as well as rig elections in the middle east. Maybe we should humble ourselves, read some history books, study the great Americans before us, and reform ourselves back to a prospering republic and get away from this global empire we are trying to pursue. Does anyone remember what happened to Ceasar?

@Ted: You said:

What is good for America is good for the world. That is crazy, after our destructive wars we try to bring democracy?

I am against nation building for the sake of nation building. But you think that what is best for America is NOT best for the world? You are against Democracy? Personal freedoms? You think the people of Iraq are worse off with Saddam Hussein gone?

We are a republic, we don’t we instill a constitution and teach people about civil liberties.

Why don’t we teach people about civil liberties? What is wrong with with that? In Iraq, they formed their own government and wrote their own constitution.

A document drawn up by Iraq’s transitional ruling coalition of Shia Muslims and Kurds has been approved in a referendum. – Source

If you have references to back up the rest of your claims, please do so.

It is all foolishness, youre arguring a point that its a bad thing Ron Paul votes against unconstitutional bills after he’s put money in it, that conditionally every bit aligned with his philosophy. Regardless, the point is Ron Paul is needed in the white house in twenty twelve, if, for no other reason, than to leverage veto power to prevent the government from a full on full blown authoritarian monstrosity. No president in the history of this country has ever been 100% constitutional, ever. Every war we have ever fought has had liberty labeled all over it but only results in more federal power, less constitutional government, and chiefly, less individual liberty. Ron Pauls goal is to establish a true constitutional republic with the government performing the only two things it was meant to do, 1. to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by another individual and 2. to protect an individuals rights from being infringed upon by a foreign government. The government has no rights, nor is it suppose to “check” itself. That is not federalism. The states/local governments check the federal government, the federal government checks state/local governments and local governments check state governments and vice versa-This IS federalism. Your local elections should be the most important election you vote in because they are suppose to have the most direct power over your life and that must be kept in check by YOU, but instead it is the least important, the one everybody roles their eyes about when driving down the road and seeing such and such for city counsel, etc, etc. This Idea that the man who sits the white house and those that fill the seats of congress should run our lives because they run it better than we can is foolish……and look where its gotten us. As the government gets more powerful our lives become more useless, save as a means to an end. We become puppets, pawn pieces conforming to the will of daddy government because daddy holds our lives in his hands. We have no economic progress, as a matter of fact its reversing, we have very little means to procure our basic needs like food and shelter because our money has no value and the prices only rise, and when you come right down to it we have no say in our government, its policies, and its methods. We have rigged election systems, a media that follows the money trail, a vast populace of morons that vote based on a letter no matter where that particular letter has got us prior-WE HAVE NO LIBERTY- its an all or nothing thing, and we have none. Ron Paul is our only hope to achieve it, not get it back, but for the first time actual have true liberty. But, because I dont trust the system, the mindless drones, the media, or anything else that leads to an elected candidate I am going to get the little money I have together stock up and guns, ammunition, and supplies, and wait for the armageddon soon to come in the event Ron Paul loses, or at the very least his Ideas lose and we continue on the same path we have been since this country was formed-totalitarianism.

Just my piece, take it if you want, if not dont say Ron Paul and others didnt try to warn you.

@Michael: You said:

No president in the history of this country has ever been 100% constitutional, ever.

Okay, cite your sources and show me, for example where George Washington violated the Constitution.

Then you said:

Ron Pauls goal is to establish a true constitutional republic with the government performing the only two things it was meant to do, 1. to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by another individual and 2. to protect an individuals rights from being infringed upon by a foreign government.

Two powers?

I am sure that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says otherwise. Here let me educate you.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Next, you said:

The government has no rights, nor is it suppose to “check” itself. That is not federalism.

No checks and balances, eh?

-Checks and Balances of the Legislative Branch-

The Legislative Branch is given the powers to make the laws. It has the following checks over the Executive Branch:

May override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote
Has the power over the purse strings to actually fund any executive actions
May remove the president through impeachment
Senate approves treaties
Senate approves presidential appointments

The Legislative Branch has the following checks over the Judicial Branch:

Creates lower courts
May remove judges through impeachment
Senate approves appointments of judges

-Checks and Balances of the Executive Branch-

The Executive Branch is given the power to carry out the laws. It has the following checks over the Legislative Branch:

Veto power
Ability to call special sessions of Congress
Can recommend legislation
Can appeal to the people concerning legislation and more

The Executive Branch has the following checks over the Judicial Branch:

President appoints Supreme Court and other federal judges

-Checks and Balances of the Judicial Branch-

The Judicial Branch is given the power to interpret the laws. It has the following checks over the Executive Branch:

Judges, once appointed for life, are free from controls from the executive branch
Courts can judge executive actions to be unconstitutional through the power of judicial review

The Judicial Branch has the following checks over the Legislative Branch:

Courts can judge legislative acts to be unconstitutional.

The American system of checks and balances has worked well over the course of America’s history. Even though some huge clashes have occurred when vetoes have been overridden or appointees have been rejected, these occasions are rare. The system was meant to keep the three branches in balance. Even though there have been times when one branch has risen preeminent, overall the three branches have achieved a workable balance with no one branch holding all the governmental power. – Source

That isn’t Federalism? Well here is the definition:

In a federal system, the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. The United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are examples of federal systems. – Source

Now you raise some valid points about the over reach of government, but your ill-conceived rants that get totally away from the Constitution just erode any credibility you might have gained.

As to your defense of Ron Paul. What he does by inputting pork into bills, then voting against them shows absolutely no integrity. None. And you cannot get around that one iota.

@one true candidate: Why is Ron Paul not in the lead? Are all americans as stupid as they seem?

@Ron Paul Campainer: Maybe those “stupid” Americans just don’t want to vote for someone who is so eager to blame America for 9/11 and who thinks that Iran with nuclear weapons is a good thing.

And before you go calling everyone in the country who doesn’t agree with you stupid, maybe you ought to at least spell “Campaigner” correctly…

Unless you mean that those who like Ron Paul are really a pain.