Poll: GOP Field For 2012 Wide Open, Palin Has Small Lead
A newly-released CNN poll, conducted just over a week ago, asked Republicans their choice for the 2012 nomination: Sarah Palin 29%, Mike Huckabee 26%, Mitt Romney 21%, Bobby Jindal 9%, Someone Else 10%. The margin of error is ±4.5%.
Bear in mind this poll as done before this week's address to Congress by President Obama -- and thus before Jindal's response speech.
So who knows what impact the speech has had on Jindal's numbers. It raised his name recognition, certainly -- but it wasn't exactly a good speech, and he's been ridiculed on all the late-night comedy shows. That, and it obviously predates today's news that he completely lied during his speech about his experiences in Hurricane Katrina.
Then again, Rush Limbaugh has been rallying the Republican base against the liberal media's ganging up on Jindal, and also against the Republicans who have joined in.
| TOPICS: Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Pres '12, Sarah Palin
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I have ten bucks that says Jindal's numbers go up after this week's "truthy" speech.
February 27, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take that bet. Today at lunch, I overheard young Republicans comparing him to Ken.
February 27, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be surprised if it isn't Mitt Romney. I'll go as far as saying Patraeus will be his VP candidate.
February 27, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin/Plumber has such a nice ring to it.
February 27, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are assuming that Patreas is a republican. I actually think that he might not be. Just because he was spewing the king's bs, doesn't mean that he is a republican. I have read things from interviews and other comments, which might indicate otherwise.
Also, mitt the flip won't make it out of the primaries. The republican party is becoming more hardcore "christian" "conservative." Mitt the flip doesn't have their same "values."
I would wager the huckster at this point, if he runs depending on where obama is. If obama is sky high in approval ratings and things are looking up, it will be a sacraficial lamb if the party still exists in 2012.
February 27, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an assumption. Patreaus *IS* a republican. A republican with political ambitions.
He's been responsible for a lot of back-channel chatter in an effort to undermine Obama as Commander-in-Chief. After years of having McCain and Bush lick his boots, it's no surprise that he wants to put that young whippersnapper Hussein in his place.
February 27, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually always thought the statements that you made in your first paragraph up til about the last year. I'm not going to go back and try to find the stuff, but I remember him saying some things and doing some things that were off the republican reservation and was surprised.
Also, he could have done alot "front channel" to undermine obama and he didn't during the election. He was pretty silent, which I thought was surprising as well. I actually thought that in a backhanded way he would be rah rahing for mcbush and he didn't, which was very surprising.
I don't know about the back channel stuff. You could be right.
I'd say the odds are that he is a republican, but maybe not. He does have major political ambitions so maybe he is seeing where the winds are blowing in ten years or so before he commits. Guaranteed he won't be running in 2012, unless something really bizarre happens.
February 27, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as one who works directly with the military daily, most brass are Republican. Thus, I must maintain my secret identity....
February 27, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I figured that, but are most brass bible thumping social conservatives that are taking over the party, or are they kind of turned off by that. Of course, the former loon that was chairman of the joint chiefs only counts as one, not a representative sample.
February 27, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know: I make it a policy to never discuss politics at work, particularly/especially with brass. In fact, I try not to talk to them at all. I've observed that the higher up they go, the more....uh....extreme they tend to be.
February 27, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's distressing. I guess it's part of the culture.
February 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Partly why suicides are up the past few months.
February 27, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an active duty general, Patreus couldn't say anything with a hint of partisanship to it during the election.
Here's a story about how Patreus is working to undermine Obama on Iraq.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html?page=38&show_comment_id=20374400#comment_20374400
February 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I know the first part, but that didn't stop him in the past. Remember the op ed before 04. That was very partisan. Now, I am recalling things that make me want to backtrack from my previous comment.
Thanks for the link by the way. I don't know how I missed that one. I usually check out the huff post once or twice a day. That's very distressing, but I like the fact that obama stuck to his guns. Good for him. He's the cic and they better follow orders or asta la vista baby.
February 27, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I found that story infuriating and it was devastating in its detail. I'm sure Obama knows that Patreus and the other repug generals have the long knives out. I hope they make the mistake of underestimating him like a lot of people have.
February 27, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel confident that obama can handle any brass problems. He holds the reins of their promotions. Also, if they don't get on board, adios and obama will not be afraid to say adios. There is a new sheriff in town. He won't take any bs from anyone. The situation is too dire.
February 27, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Huck and Palin will split the evangelical vote, effectively eliminating both.
The Alaskan senate classes works against Palin here, if either was in Class I then I think Palin would opt to go after that seat for 2012 and save her presidential play for 2016. However with Murkowski up in 2010 and Begich not up until 2014, she's handcuffed.
I wonder if she'll try to primary Murkowski in 2010 rather than running for re-election for Governor. If she loses, at least she'd be free to start running for 2012 by moving to Washington and attending all the right parties. And if she wins, she'd set herself up rather nicely for 2016.
February 27, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why on earth would she want to go to the Senate? She'd be number 100 probably out of 100. No clout.
It's better to be the BIG attraction in a small pond than number 100 out 100, with the other 99 not caring for her if she turns into a publicity hound.
February 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, she won't go to the senate. She's better off in alaska as still basically an unknown quantity. She gets in the senate and there will be much more media scrutiny of her wackiness. She can ride her current popularity with the base for the next go around without exposing herself. She can keep being mayor of that 20th largest american metropolis, alaska, and make a run in 2012.
February 27, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's got all the juice she'll get out of being Alaskan Governor, in the Senate she could start building her national chops, get on the right committees, and she could also be based in Washington.
February 27, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that she can't keep hiding in alaska and burst on the scene. She is a complete light weight and a fool. The media scrutiny in the senate would bury her. Also, it's better to be governor of a state, even if it's basically a mid-sized city, than sitting in the minority in the senate with no power and saying no all the time.
February 27, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Jonze/Walter on this one: all she has to do is sit on her hands, button her lip and co-sponsor some very popular legislation. She gains some respectability and shows some maturity. Political redemption comes easily in a country filled with voters who are both political amnesiacs and preoccupied with a treacherous economic situation (yeah, this is going to last a few years).
February 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the only way to cosponsor very popular legislation is to cosponsor a Democratic written piece of legislation.
The base isn't going to like that.
February 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What base? She (or any Repug) will have to play for the middle /independents. Working with Dems is their only play if they want to grow out of rump status.
February 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what I thought until the votes on the stimulus package. They seem to be playing for purity, permanent rump status and extinction as far as I can tell.
February 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing that they're letting the fools discredit themselves early on so that the grown-ups can come back and take the reins with some credibility and demonstrated maturity.
February 27, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Petraeus called himself a Rockefeller Republican in the NY Times. ie, a Republican who is closer to Snowe and Collins than DeMint and Cornyn. Or to put it another way, a Republican who is more like Governor Mitt Romney than Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.
Is that the kind of guy a Repub would put on the ticket? hard to say...
either way, I think the nominee will be either Palin or a boring Christian white man like Sanford or Pawlenty. Can't see the GOP going for a Mormon, an Indian-American, or a moderate, which rules out Romney, Jindal, Crist, and Huntsman (twice!).
February 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin? Not likely.
Pa, Pa,
where's my Ma?
Gone to the White House....
What we are viewing as a suicide is actually a murder. The Republican Party is being killed and the body disposed of, to hide the evidence.
February 27, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, speaking of candidates, I wonder if Joe Biden will stay on board in 2012. He is getting up there in age.
Depending on what the pressing issue of 2012 is, I could see Obama picking up a VP who specializes in that area....just a thought.
February 27, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think "HRC"....
February 27, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That theory that is floating around is that Biden and HRC would switch spots. Biden would be SOS, or a special envoy and HRC would be VP, depending on the political climate at the time of the election.
February 27, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That theory that is floating around"?
Excuse me, but who is your source?
The same source who informed us that Petraeus is behind all the attempt to undermine the Commander in Chief?
February 27, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say it was news or was credible, it's a theory I've seen mentioned on different message boards basically ever since Sec. Clinton accepted the State job.
February 27, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No freaking way. No way. Not in a million years. Yeah, I got another theory, obama and clinton switch in 2012 and obama is secretary of state and clinton runs for president. I also have a bridge for sale.
February 27, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a theory that's been dancing in the back of my mind ever since Obama nominated her: what other plum could he have possibly offered her for her to accept the leash and muzzle so eagerly?
February 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secretary of state was a huge plumb and the biggest one he had to offer. She would have been foolish not to take it. She was a total back bencher in the senate. Way back in the pecking order. The dems in the senate would have thrown her a tiny bone to try and make her happy, but she saw the handwriting on the wall. Either be a back bencher or the face of US diplomacy for 8 years hopefully. No brainer.
February 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but SoS is pretty easy to leave after 4 years if you want to make a run for POTUS. If you slip her into the VP slot, you neutralize the "outside the tent" whizzing distractions. Imagine how awful a PR nightmare it would be if HRC challenges Obama in '12. He's going to be pretty up against the hot pipes if the economy doesn't improve shortly before then and fending off both Repugs and Blue Dogs is inevitable in that scenario. Adding HRC as a challenger to that mix would be over the top for any sitting president.
February 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would she give up SoS to become a potted plant, otherwise knows as vice president? Certainly not to run for president in 2016. By then she'll be 69 years old, which doesn't make for a very viable candidate.
February 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ambition can make dreamers ignore certain realities: just ask McCain and Reagan.
Having both SoS and VP on one's resume, plus presuming upon the tradition of the VP as heir-apparent, is quite a lot to have at one's disposal particularly if one believes that one is "owed" the presidency ("but, but, but....it's my turn"!).
February 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "tradition of VP as heir apparent" is pretty overstated. In practice, it's a rarity that a sitting VP wins an election. Without counting, I'd bet it's more common for an incumbent SoS to be elected than sitting VP.
February 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offhand, I can't think of one in the past century.
February 27, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be the first ever female Vice-President - it will be in all of the history books.
February 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to the story about Patreus' attempts to undermine Obama as CIC. There was another one with even more examples of his underhandedness that I can't find right now.
It's very well sourced with real names. Read it. You might learn something. But then again . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html?page=38&show_comment_id=20374400#comment_20374400
February 27, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last time a sitting VP won the election;
George H W Bush 1988,
The last time a Sec of State won the White House;
James Buchanan 1856,
February 27, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sad to see Jindal losing to "someone else". That exorcism story would make for some hilarious punditry.
It always struck me as hilarious how the GOP mocks Obama with the Messiah tag when one of their own prominent "superstars" readily claims to have cast out demons and cured cancer with his Jesus powers. Talk about a Messiah complex.
February 27, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?!?! You mean Joe the Plumber didn't break double-digits? I thought for sure that his 5 book sales would push him over the top.
February 27, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
38 days into a new presidency and they a a prsidential poll. this is crazy
February 27, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin? Please make it Palin.
The only one on this list who seriously concerns me is the Huckster. He hides that wingnuttiness under such an appealing exterior.
I don't see Mitt going anywhere.
February 27, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You beat me to it. Palin 2012, puh-lease! Would love for all the Tina Fey stuff to be pulled out of the closet and have her irritate/amuse/offend independent voters All Over Again.
Mitt the Flip II might be entertaining and certainly beatable as well. Pull out those flip-flop vids on abortion/magic underwear/why he didn't serve in Vietnam or his sons serve in Iraq etc. from Youtube All Over Again.
And Yes, the Huckster is one to be afraid of. A Trojan Bush.
February 27, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it depends where we are as a country four years from now.
If Obama still has high approvals, economy impoves considerably, etc- Palin will be the one. Mitts becomes viable if Economy doesn't get any better.
They will throw the lamb to the lions..
February 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Mittster is just too much of a phony to be a reasonable candidate.
February 27, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to who? Sarah Palin? Rudy Giuliani? The GOP is packed full of phonies.
February 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, true, but the "phony" theme has already been nailed to Romney.
February 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I doubt Romney knows what he believes in these days.
He's a really weak candidate as a GOPer.
February 28, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews recalls how they rejoiced and breathed a sigh of relief in the Carter WH when Reagan got the nomination in 1980. "No way will that right-wing nutcase get elected," they thought . . .
In 1993, the repugs thought they were home free when the Dems nominated a draft-dodging womanizing hick from Arkansas.
In 2006-7, the repugs were licking their lips at the prospect of running against a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.
I know enough about politics to know that I don't known a thing about who will be an appealing candidate, especially nearly 4 years out.
February 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Republicans were licking their chops at the prospect of running against Hillary Clinton, because a black man with the name of Obama wasn't even on the legitimage candidate radar screen in 2006 - 2007.
But whatever. Only proves your point.
I still stick to my original position. There's just too much comedy material out there on Palin right now, and I do not think you easily overcome that.
February 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary would have beat McCain, too, although by a smaller electoral margin than Obama. She would have lost IN & NC and possibly VA.
February 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to launch into I don't know about that. Then I remembered, the economy tanking would have propelled clinton as well to the presidency. Nobody knew that during the primaries, but you are probably right, she probably would have won as well. She just would not have had near the mandate that obama had nor the coattails. We'd be looking at less senators and house members.
February 27, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for the GOP is that they like known candidates, that are basically pushed from top down.
Huckabee and Romney are in the best position to win.
Petraus could win GOP nod, but I don't think he'd leave in 2010 to run in 2012 (he'd be 59).
By 2016, it would probably be too late for him to make the same kind of impact on the GOP field (he'd be 63).
February 28, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like trying to select a movie screening at Razzies. Huck, Pale-in, Mittens, Jin-Dal. LOL!!!!
February 27, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to Oxy Rush's support of Jindal, remember that he was 100% anti-McCain during the '08 primaries, switching from Rudy to Mittens just in time for each of them to implode. So I don't think he has the kind of clout to swing an election.
February 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, its official. None of these people will be the nominee. Its a rule. No non-incumbent who is deemed worth asking about in a poll four years out can win the nomination.
February 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, "Someone Else," excluded, of course.
February 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rush should run- and put the final nail in his coffin.
February 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, isn’t that PALIN a GREAT LADY!!!!!
Elect Palin - Rumsfeld 2012!!
bleeda
February 27, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin/Jindal 2012, pure comedy gold
February 27, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard today on MSNBC that even though the military brass came in to this process disliking Obama (I think it was Jim Miklashevski at the Pentagon)but after they spent time with Obama they began to respect and like him very much and are very impressed by him. Jim made it sound like it was a clear consensus that things had changed. Also, Chuck Todd said he had heard the same things from his sources. So for whatever it's worth even though Patreus started this process with a clear agenda against Obama it sounded today as if things may have changed.
February 27, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Palin in 2012 any different than Rudy in 2008? A candidate who's famous for being famous. Palin is widely associated with submarining McCain's numbers.
You're telling me Sarah Palin's going to win primaries in Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire? LOFL.
As far as Hillary becoming VP in 2012, I think that's crazy too. Changing your ticket is a sign of weakness.
February 28, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink