60% of Voters Would Definitely Not Vote for Palin

Toro

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2005
106,231
41,049
2,250
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
This poll is over a week old, so I apologize if this has been posted and would ask the mods to merge it into another thread if it already has. However, I did a search and couldn't find it.

Six in 10 voters say they would not even consider voting for the former Alaska governor if she launches a White House bid, and she loses badly to President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 general election test. ...

A slim 8 percent of all registered voters say they would definitely vote for Palin for president, while 31 percent say they would consider doing so. Fully 60 percent say they definitely would not. Among all Americans, 59 percent say they would not vote for her, up from 53 percent in November 2009.

Even among Republicans, Palin has detractors, with 29 percent saying they would definitely not back her candidacy. Her highest support comes from Republican women and conservative Republicans. Even so, only about one in five in each group say they would certainly support her presidential bid.

Neither does Palin enjoy wide support among independents: 62 percent say they definitely would not vote for her. Among moderates, 66 percent write off her prospective candidacy.

In a hypothetical head-to-head general election matchup against Obama, the president prevails by 13 percentage points over Palin among registered voters, 53 to 40 percent. Palin draws 78 percent of Republicans in that test, while Obama enjoys support from 89 percent of Democrats. Independents break widely - 56 percent to 35 percent - for the incumbent.

Post-ABC poll: Sarah Palin lags Obama in theoretical 2012 presidential election
 
Good grief,

TWO YEARS AWAY FOLKS.


and this is a ABC poll...so :lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
It is two years away.

She now has a ton of cash, and she can talk directly to the voters and she is good at direct conversation.

Back in 1980 Reagan had a worse uphill climb. He was 69, had been out of office for 6 years, lost a bitter convention battle that split the party badly and wound up passing the white house to a horrible loser president, he was the laughing stock of all the talking heads (there were fewer of them around then too) and the but of countless jokes based on the pronunciation of his name. Over the corse of a year he did a great job of selling his ideas and vision to the American people in the face of a great deal of initial hostility.

Don't sell her short. I really don't see anyone actually running who can beat her right now. Romney has MassCare as a huge blot on his record, and Huckabee is mister revolving door jail.

And don't give Obama too much credit either. He seems as feckless as Carter, and soon or late he will have a stupid worse than Iran on his hands.

So it will be an interesting 22 months between now and then. A lot changed over the last 24 months, and a lot more will change over the next 21. We will see where we are then
 
It is two years away.

She now has a ton of cash, and she can talk directly to the voters and she is good at direct conversation.

Back in 1980 Reagan had a worse uphill climb. He was 69, had been out of office for 6 years, lost a bitter convention battle that split the party badly and wound up passing the white house to a horrible loser president, he was the laughing stock of all the talking heads (there were fewer of them around then too) and the but of countless jokes based on the pronunciation of his name. Over the corse of a year he did a great job of selling his ideas and vision to the American people in the face of a great deal of initial hostility.

Don't sell her short. I really don't see anyone actually running who can beat her right now. Romney has MassCare as a huge blot on his record, and Huckabee is mister revolving door jail.

And don't give Obama too much credit either. He seems as feckless as Carter, and soon or late he will have a stupid worse than Iran on his hands.

So it will be an interesting 22 months between now and then. A lot changed over the last 24 months, and a lot more will change over the next 21. We will see where we are then

You're definitely right. The election is still a long way away. Anything can happen.

But that includes the economy getting better. If the economy starts getting better, Obama's numbers will start to improve, no matter who the prospective Republican nominee is.

I would disagree that Reagan had a bigger uphill climb. I don't think his negatives were ever as high as Palin's are. Plus, as you said, he split the party, but that means he already had a machine behind him. He also wasn't plucked from obscurity and thrust into the national limelight without much experience behind him. He also didn't live in a constant 24/7 media loop.

That doesn't mean Palin can't win. She can. But one has to take her supporters with a huge grain of salt. They exhibit a more intense religiosity about her than anybody, including Obama's supporters. They just don't recognize it.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
So, who are we going to vote for? I believe that 60% of the voters won't be voting for Obama either.
 
1. if the economy gets worse....why would this help palin? what are her qualifications? she quit as governor.

2. if the economy gets better, obama stands to gain much. in order to compete with that, pubs need a smart fiscal conservative like romney. and if its bad, pubs need the same.

palin - has nothing. she thinks being a teacher is a lowly serf job that one needs to roll their eyes at
 
Palin has almost no chance in hell of becoming US president.

But if she does you can be sure that we have entered the last irrational phase before our democratic republic wrecks on the shores of "the crazy can't govern themselves" island.
 

Forum List

Back
Top