2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Would it be surprising, if this trend continues, to see a poll that shows Palin leading Obama in 2012 (Would that jolt Obama even further to the right)? Its not as far off as you'd imagine.

Via Rasmussen, some 2012 numbers:

2012 President
44% Romney, 44% Obama
45% Obama, 41% Huckabee
46% Obama 43% Palin

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 48 / 51
Mitt Romney: 49 / 38
Mike Huckabee: 58 / 30
Sarah Palin: 46 / 49

Its kinda goofy that Huckabee would have that high a favorable and trail Obama by slightly more than the other two. Opinion Dynamics has the Palin favorable numbers higher than the others:

Sarah Palin   47%
Mike Huckabee  45%
Newt Gingrich  38%
Mitt Romney   38%

The Gingrich numbers, if he does get in, will likely be worse than any of the others running. Which brings us to the Iowa caucus-goers poll of favorables/unfavorables.

First, I have to wonder if, given that Obama will not be challenged, a lot (many or some?) of those 2008 caucus-goers that attended the Democratic caucus, 230K or so, might caucus with Republicans in 2012?  It certainly wouldn't be surprising to see the Republican '80's turnout records shattered in '12.

There are three groups in the Iowa poll that cluster in the favorable ratings of "not sure" for the answer (among all Iowans):

Palin- 8%

Gingrich- 22%
Huckabee- 24%
Romney- 28%

Pataki- 70%
Jindal- 74%
Pawlenty- 73%

Palin is in a world of her own, but I continue to believe she will flirt with running, but not actually run in the end.

It looks to me like Huckabee is going to be strongly favored to win Iowa. His overall favorable rating is 54% positive, while Gingrich (42%) and Romney (40%) trail. Among only Republicans/Moderates (those who would attend a GOP caucus) the favorables:

Huckabee- 70/50
Palin- 60/23
Romney- 58/37

Unless I'm totally wrong and Palin does run (they would split the social conservative base in half), the polling shows Huckabee with nearly a lock on the Iowa caucus. I thought ( a few months ago) that Gingrich might have an opening in Iowa, but not with these kind of numbers. What seems more likely at this point is that a longshot might come up (maybe not even on the radar yet being still 25 months away, and be the story with a close 2nd/3rd to Huckabee. My guess is Gary Johnson. I could see a lot of Ron Paul Libertarian Republicans backing him, and a lot of Libertarian Democrats showing up to caucus for him, that boost his numbers (if his campaign does the targeting/organizing).

On Iowa, I just finished David Plouffe's book, and its probably (their voter-targeting in Iowa) my favorite part of the book. I've got a couple of in-depth drafts up for posts on it that I'll do in the next few days.

Tags: 2012 (all tags)

Comments

51 Comments

Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Huckabee certainly has the profile of an Iowa winner.  I wouldn't put any stock at all in Rasmussen, though, considering they're using a likely voter screen 3 years in advance of the election, and one that always seems to give markedly different results from every other poll.

by Steve M 2009-11-25 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Yea, I expect to see her lead (prob by Zogby) just for the PR value by the pollster.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-25 12:21PM | 0 recs
Isn't Ras right leaning too?

Or is that just a dKos meme?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't Ras right leaning too?

The two points go together.  I mean, there's no dispute that they're a Republican shop, but being right-leaning means nothing unless you actually DO something to introduce bias.  In their case the two relevant things are this likely voter screen that assumes more Republicans will show up 3 years from now, and their ridiculous "presidential approval index" that only tracks strongly approve and strongly disapprove to make it look like Obama is in the negative.

by Steve M 2009-11-26 02:13AM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

2012 President
44% Romney, 44% Obama
45% Obama, 41% Huckabee
46% Obama 43% Palin

Let's face it, these are not good numbers for a Democratic president in his first year. Now it may be Palin's recent notoriety, her awful book, that has pulled her to just three points behind Obama, but we are talking here about a contest between a Harvard intellectual and a beauty queen.

Only in America!

by MainStreet 2009-11-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
How do you know?

Let's face it, these are not good numbers for a Democratic president in his first year.
You have to compare these poll numbers to something in history before you can make such a conclusion.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: How do you know?

Well I could reproduce Bush's numbers after his first year (after 9/11), but that would be unfair. You're not incorrect about my lack of research, but it is still astoudning that a simpleton like Palin could reach so close to Obama. I don't blame Obama, of course, but the American electorate is just that ignorant.

by MainStreet 2009-11-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Don't blame Americans too much.  If the administration were not so neoliberal things would be better.

by demjim 2009-11-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
way too early, but....

if Obama continues to slide, I think there's going to be some handwringing in Democratic circles.  I think a primary challenge won't come from the left but will have to be performance-oriented, and I don't think anyone's out there right now.

My take is Obama took on too much, and we've also contributed to his problems by being too perfectionist about his agenda and worrying too much about nuances on civil libeties issues, and whether he's carrying out too many Bush policies.

But, he is stuck with the bailouts and a bad stimulus.  And if his Afghan surge fails, he will be at 27% just like Bush.

by esconded 2009-11-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: way too early, but....

It's illogical to blame citizens for Obama's problems because they are unhappy with some of his policies/positions.  The implication of your comment is that if people just didn't express their views (ie, if they just shut up), Obama would be doing much better.  What kind of society does that get us?  (See Bush, G.W.)

by orestes 2009-11-26 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

There's no way this poll is accurate. Huck's favorable and Obama's unfavorables are both jokes. I think it's clear Obama is now below 50 on approval, but the RCP average spread is still 5.3. Rasmussen is the ONLY one with a net negative.

by Nathan Empsall 2009-11-25 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Rasmussen poll is an outlier if not total garbage. Everyone asks whether Gallup is an outlier. It is not..Rasmussen is. First, worry about 2010 before even looking at 2012. Democrats could end up loosing a net of five seats in the Senate and 25-30 seats in the House, unless oil prices spike and we have a double dip, under which circumstances they could end up loosing the House and Senate. Based on the polls (not the garbage from Rasmussen or for that matter Zogby), several incumbent Senators are in very serious trouble..Senate Majority Leader Reid, Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln and Kristin Gillibrand among them and dont forget Castle in Delaware..I for one dont believe Boxer will be defeated in CA...it wont even be close. But, do watch out...we may end up having Senators Toomey and Gulliani among the rest and that is a frightening scenario...more frightening than a prospective Senator Lou "the Looser Flip-Flopping" Dobbs. And hope and pray we dont have a double dip..otherwise, here comes House Majority Whip Jim Boehner.

by Boilermaker 2009-11-25 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

The "could" number for Democrats losing is more like 10, and if Dobbs gets into the NJ race, it'd be 11 (including Boxer). I'm not predicting this, but it 'could' be for sure, as we have 10 seats that are not safe right now.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-25 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Yeah, also, what if Jon Voight and Stephen Baldwin run?  We could get crushed!

by Steve M 2009-11-25 03:07PM | 0 recs
There is no NJ race

by ND22 2009-11-25 03:09PM | 0 recs
New Jersey isnt up until 2012

Thank god.  

by Kent 2009-11-25 04:05PM | 0 recs
Sabato Sez

10 is "could," but a very extreme could. That's the nightmare scenario, not just an '06 or '94 but a '76. Possible, but not probable. I don't see it getting nearly that bad.

Larry Sabato's not my favorite, but:

he Democrats will automatically retain 41 seats and Republicans 21--that is, these 62 seats aren't on the 2010 ballot. Given Vice President Biden's tie-breaking vote, Democrats need to win a mere 9 seats in 2010 to retain control, and just to begin with, they have 10 reasonably secure incumbents on the ballot. By contrast, the Republicans would have to win 30 seats to take the Senate, which would require holding all their own seats plus capturing 11 currently Democratic seats.

Let's get real. That's not going to happen unless there is a complete collapse on the Democratic side... If 2010 becomes a solidly GOP midterm election, it's possible, even likely, that the Republicans could sweep all seven of their open seats. But the seven represent broad exposure in widely different states, so even top Republicans privately worry that they will lose one or two.

by Nathan Empsall 2009-11-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Boxer

Why do you think she could lose--it will only happen if 2010 is a wave year, which certainly is a real possibility.

Sure it's possible--about a 20-30% chance, but Fiorina isn't the strongest opponent.  If Tom Campbell ran for Senate instead, Boxer would definitely be in trouble.

by esconded 2009-11-25 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Boxer

I agree re Fiorina.  I don't think 2010 is going to be a good year for the corporate candidates.

by orestes 2009-11-26 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Boxer

I didn't say she would lose, just that she is vulnerable (unlike Murry for example). I'll hold off my Senate predictions until a few weeks out, and try to keep my 100% string going another cycle.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-26 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

It might be Ras--could we be saying hello to Jeff Sessions, Senate Judiciary chairman?  Obama will get zero judicial appointments through.

by esconded 2009-11-25 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Well, a month ago I would have told you there was no way that we'd (here in Virginia) get blown out by double-digits in all the statewide races-- and yet we were, by 59ish - 41ish.

If you look at the '08 results, according to the exit polling, among those who voted in '04, Obama barely won, 50-49, over McCain.

New voters, Obama blew him away, 71-27.

Combine a bunch of those new voters not checking in right now, with a swing among those established voters, and its pretty simple to see that we could swing back to '02-'04 results real quick.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-25 02:36PM | 0 recs
I wonder how it would have been if McCain had won

First of all, I think the Democrats would be in far better shape, likely winning New Jersey and maybe even winning in Virginia.  For 2010, I think Democrats would have picked up another 15 seats in the House and four or five in the Senate, getting to a nearly two thirds majority.  Considering that 2010 is a redistricting year, this is the worst time to be messing up like this.  I wish this was happening in November 2011 instaed of now.  

by Kent 2009-11-25 04:04PM | 0 recs
The country would have been in far better shape

Sure, if McCain had won. You have Palin there as VP, and McCain's life expectancy isn't that great. Not to mention the McCain agenda.

I have to say, this is the most idiotic comment I've ever read here in my albeit short tenure.

You want to trade Obama for some asinine governor's races in NJ and VA?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 06:07PM | 0 recs
Kent as UpstateDem on DailyKos

said it was better off if McCain had won a year ago.

This is Kent from DECEMBER 4, 2008!!!;

I know people are going to call my a troll for this, but just think about how good of shape Democrats would be in for the next four years if McCain had been elected.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/4/ 21524/3939

by ND22 2009-11-25 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Kent as UpstateDem on DailyKos

There is no question that it is easier to be in the opposition.  The downside is that you don't get to actually do anything.

Look at it this way: if the Republicans had the huge majority instead of us, we would have a LOT more takeover opportunities for the next election.  We really blew that one.

by Steve M 2009-11-25 06:26PM | 0 recs
You're forgetting the most important thing!

"There is no question that it is easier to be in the opposition.  The downside is that you don't get to actually do anything...."
But it's so much easier to be a whiner!

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Kent as UpstateDem on DailyKos

We are not doing anything.  Why pay the rent when you dont even get to live in the house?

by Kent 2009-11-25 06:41PM | 0 recs
Wow

you mean we didn't, first the very first time EVER, after nine failures, pass a sweeping healthcare reform bill in the House of Representatives and we didn't just get to the floor of the Senate?

If this is not doing anything, I'd hate to see what you're bar is for actually doing something.

by ND22 2009-11-25 06:59PM | 0 recs
But we'd have to throw the 2010 elections

lest we win a majority and doom our chances to win in 2012!

Which, of course, would doom our chances in 2014, so we can't win in 2012 either.

But 2014 means we'd have a hard time winning in 2016, so we can't win those elections either.

and God forbid we should elect a Democratic president in 2016, the 2018 midterms would be a killer.

and we'd be better off losing the 2018 midterms so it would be easy to win the 2020 Presidential Elections.

but, wait, if we in 2020, then there goes the 2022 midterms.

...right Kent?

by ND22 2009-11-25 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: But we'd have to throw the 2010 elections

Just avoid winning Presidential elections and aim for a two thirds majority in Congress.  

by Kent 2009-11-25 07:42PM | 0 recs
Um... uh...

The demographics support this?

Also, all those pesky executive orders and wars.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Um... uh...

Like Afghanistan?

by Kent 2009-11-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
Like Iraq

by ND22 2009-11-25 11:13PM | 0 recs
but...

There would have been a squeeze put on Democratic governors with all their budget issues, not to mention Supreme Court appointments.

by esconded 2009-11-25 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

It's a bit early to be considering polls for 2012. Huckabee won Iowa last time so I don't doubt he has a good shot there again. However the real GOP primary is always SC and FL.

How did the polls for 2008 work out in 2005?

by vecky 2009-11-25 02:02PM | 0 recs
Dems never win these out-conservative-the

-conservatives fights. We need to challenge the basic premises of our warfare and corporate-welfare-only state, and any Democrat who does so may find success. Otherwise, the majority of the electorate -- which is basically to the left of Obama -- will remain disillusioned and non-participating. The historic identity politics moment motivation won't work twice.

by fairleft2 2009-11-25 02:06PM | 0 recs
"likely voters"

in 2009 for 2012?

by John DE 2009-11-25 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: "likely voters"

Good point. I wonder how any 17yos were called... The LV model discounts people who've never voted before, so I'll leave the 15yos out of it, but the 17yos will have had 2010...

by Nathan Empsall 2009-11-25 05:51PM | 0 recs
So, I guess it's true.

Guess Hillary was the only candidate who could beat McCain.

Oh, Obama thought he was winning, but it was only a temporary bump.

The truth is now dawning on everybody.

Where's AreYouReady?

by Bush Bites 2009-11-25 04:05PM | 0 recs
When will Obama "seal the deal"???

I remember when these folks were calling Obama a McGovern during the campaign, noting how his logo even looked alarmingly similar (it does).

This isn't Jerome's point -- these polls are informative in their own right despite their inherent (and substantial) shortcomings.

But I cannot fathom the psychology behind those who have been proven wrong each and every time, and yet continue to doubt Obama.

Do they think they will finally be right?
Is it pessimism? There is always a welcome place for the pessimist at the table -- it keeps the rest of us grounded.
Or is it something else?

We'll lose seats. We may lose a lot like Regan in 1982. But I doubt either house will switch control, and we are so far away and at the (likely) worst point for approval based on the recovery timetable.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

What does it say that Pawlenty hasn't even been mentioned?

He scares me to death because he is so smooth politically that people think he is a work together type moderate but he is as right wingie as they get. He is just not stupid about it like Bachmann or Palin.

Anyway, I thought maybe TPaw would fare well in Iowa. He has the somewhat local boy angle. He is hard core evangelical. His pastor replaced Ted Haggart as leader of evangelicals. He's got the Tea Bagger no taxes thing going. I fear Tpaw because he is a monster inside smarmy/charming exterior.

by alectimmerman 2009-11-25 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Oh yeah, Obama is losing his ratings because it appears like he is not doing what he promised, not because he is not far enough to the right.

(I know full well he has accomplished a ton, but it means nothing image wise if he loses health care.)

by alectimmerman 2009-11-25 05:09PM | 0 recs
If he loses healthcare, he is useless

He will be the laughing stock of the media and country.  

by Kent 2009-11-25 05:42PM | 0 recs
Ok let's compare

Kent a half hour ago;

I have long said that reform was impossible in this country.

Kent now;

If he loses healthcare, he is useless

So he'll be the laughing stock of the country because he didn't pass what is apparently impossible to pass anyway.

Just pointing out how incredibility obvious it is that you're a troll.

So go choke on a dead rat and die, k? thanks.

by ND22 2009-11-25 06:10PM | 0 recs
And when it passes

You'll be the laughing stock.

I wouldn't bet against Obama.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-25 06:40PM | 0 recs
Isn't it obvious

when it pass, Kent will move to "oh, we never should've done healthcare, it's going to bury us, Obama needs to be removed for being so stupid as to push this bill and force the Democrats to lose for it"

who wants to bet money? kent?

by ND22 2009-11-25 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Democrats will not loose the Senate...Inouye, Mikulski, MA (open), Scuhmer, Wyden, Leahy, Murray and Feingold will win. I am certain that Boxer will also win which means that Bayh has to retire to even tie. House is a different matter though!

by Boilermaker 2009-11-26 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

I find it depressing beyond words that we're in a position where we can be talking about losing the senate and the house with the majorities we have and the republican party in the state its in.

by liberalj 2009-11-26 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

Never underestimate the ability of democrats and liberals to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

By all accounts we should be gaining senate seats in 2010.

by vecky 2009-11-26 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: 2012 & Iowa for Republicans

If only we were going down in a blaze of glory, passing healthcare, gay marriage, immigration reform....

by liberalj 2009-11-27 09:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads