Obama Leads All 2012 Match Ups

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/22/obama_leads_all_2012_match_ups.html

Obama Leads All 2012 Match Ups

Public Policy Polling on some hypothetical 2012 match ups: President Obama leads Mike Huckabee 47% to 43%, Mitt Romney 48% to 40%, Sarah Palin 52% to 40%, and Tim Pawlenty 50% to 30%.

Interesting: Huckabee is the only Republican with a positive favorability rating and even then it's only 33% to 29%.

[Baltoman991]

1. OH NOOOOOOOOO!!

Whatever will we do? If the Repukes don't find a suitable nominee soon we'll have to suffer with another 4 years of the spineless, weak, sell out who now sits in the White House. We're screwed I tell ya, screwed. :sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

2. Not bad for a complete and utter failure, eh?

:rofl:

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Would like him to be above 50%...

But that'll come. This is probably the lowest point of his presidency and he's still pretty much kicking ass.

[Baltoman991]

4. I agree,

But with the bullshit he has to deal with from the media, and even worse, Democratic boards pushing right wing spew, I think he's at a higher number then I would have expected. Kudos to those Americans who think for themselves and aren't pushed in one direction or the other by the "Liberal" MSM.

[sofa king]

8. Oh, don't worry about the boards spewing. They never stop.

Most of the spewers have never seen a true centrist trying to run the executive branch. We haven't had one since, what, maybe Eisenhower?

A true centrist, in my opinion, is more left-leaning than most Democrats in Congress. We've not had a true left-leaning President since Roosevelt.

The only thing the board-spewing tells me is that our President is doing something. As long as he's doing, people will spew about it, because he certainly won't telegraph his ultimate objectives, and he won't start going after those objectives by simply changing a policy overnight.

Ultimately, the spewers are going to have to make the same choice that we are going to make in a few years: Obama again, or someone far, far worse.

[Mojambo]

5. Well, he'd be in pretty big trouble if he didn't at this point.

Actually those numbers are pretty iffy, IMO.

Not good to be polling under 50%.

He'll tick up if he gets some stuff done on health care.

[NYC Liberal]

6. It's actually pretty good when you think about it

Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Romney ... they've all spent the last 9 months doing nothing but attacking Obama.

Obama on the other hand, isn't going to directly attack any one of them - why would he? At most he can response to the attacks in a general way.

Once we get closer to 2012 and the campaign gears up, Obama will be able to go after them head on.

So he's where he should be, considering all that.

[burning rain]

7. I'm sure Romney would make a better showing than Huck.

At this point Huck benefits from hazy familiarity with his less palatable positions, Baptist theocracy foremost, and profits maximally from his usually friendly demeanor (you don't have to swing the ax when you're not on the hustings). The public remains a bit more familiar with Romney, as he had more support than Huck in the primaries. One interesting thing about Huck, though: he's a rare Republican who acknowledges that non-rich folks have legitimate interests, but he spoils it by touting the ludicrous and outrageously plutocratic "Fair Tax."

[Arugula Latte]

9. I'll save the mainstream corporate media some trouble: "This is bad for Obama and the Democrats."

:D

[Robbins]

10. 2012

They can't beat him.Huckabee gets this close due to his likable Image.When people hear his relgious wacko agenda his numbers will go down,and he can help Obama get Bill Clinton numbers with Hispanic
voters(with could put arizona In Play) Romney will be the 2012 Dole If he gets the nodd(If he can get past the Relgious candiates Huchabee and palin) and will be killed as a flip flopper.He could put
Nevada,and Indiana In play for Republicans.However Missouri,and Montana could go In play for Obama.
Romney's entire economic plan Is stop Government spending,and more tax cuts for the Rich.Against Palin
2012 will be bad for Republicans.Obama would keep all the 2008 States he won plus put Arizona,Montana,
Missouri,and Possibly Georgia In play.Pawlenty would lose Minnesotta to Obama.Which would be funny.
They used to give Gore grief for losing Tennesse.

[quantass]

11. Isnt 2012 like 3 years away? Wasnt Hillary spanking Obama up until the last few weeks of a State?

So conducting these kinds of polls are worthless. Granted it is an ego booster for us democrats but nothing more.

[denem]

12. Analysis: Palin is worth +2 to 5% Democratic all by herself.

Obama cracks 52% against Palin.

[Amonester]

17. Oh, Run Silly... uh,.. Sarah, Run! n/t

[WI_DEM]

13. If the economy is stronger and unemployment is down in '12 Obama wins by Reaganesque margin

Remember Reagan had a bad recession in 82-83 with double digit unemployment and in November of 1984 the economy had picked up (statistically) and unemployment was still high at better than 7% but it was going downward and he won 59%. Obama would do as well. It all depends on where we are economically in 2012.

[Arkana]

16. Reagan had the media on his side.

Obama does not.

[saltpoint]

14. Recommended. The Republicans have their work cut out for them.

They've long ago had their brains cut out for them.

[Ter]

15. That it's even this close is frightening

Was was McLame polling this time last year?

[uponit7771]

18. Huck would run towards the middle and lose the KKKon base.