Here is the Gallup Poll that is creating a bit of a buzz this morning. The top numbers are:
What does this mean in terms of the 2012 elections? Not much. There is still nearly two and a half years before the first votes are cast in the 2012 Iowa caucus. Nobody needs to be slitting wrists or popping corks just yet.
However, in terms of what is happening right now, it is significant.
Huckabee, according to several of his ardent supporters, has been running hard already. Five days a week he is hitting the campaign trail, making speeches, raising PAC money, dispensing it, working for other candidates, etc. And he has his popular TV show. The result of all this hard work? His numbers keep dropping.
Palin has been very much in the news lately. In what many of her supporters are claiming was a brilliant move paving the way for her to ascend to the White House, she is resigning as Governor. The trends says otherwise. Her numbers have been falling, as well.
Mitt Romney has basically been sitting quietly. He issues an occasional press release, appears in an interview now and again, makes the occasional speech, attends a fund raiser every once in a while — all pretty low-key stuff. The results? His stock keeps rising.
These trends have to be the biggest worry to Huckabee. Sarah is already in the process of making a course correction. If Huckabee is truly working as hard as his supporters claim he is, and he is still losing ground to a man who is essentially taking it easy, he is in danger of suffering Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 fate in New Hampshire. Everytime Rudy spent money, his percentages dropped. He eventually had to pull out.
Is it time for a Huckabee course correction?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I prefer Romney to keep this low, but steady profile. Rudy was the frontrunner for a long time, and a lot of good that did.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
2010 GOP Gov Primary:
Perry 46
Hutchinson 36
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/election_2010_texas_republican_primary
July 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am
As I said on a previous post, I am disappointed in Huckabee’s numbers. However, they only polled 455 people.
I can see Romney’s numbers going down if Republicans start using Romneycare as an argument against Obamacare. Will republicans who want to see Romney win in 2012 bring up Romneycare? Do they care more about keeping private, marketbased healthcare and fighting against national healthcare or do they care more about promoting Romney for 2012?
I have seen talkshow/radio start to bring up the dangers of Romneycare. But I have yet to see one republican bring up the failure of Romneycare.
Republicans have a perfect example of how national healthcare will destroy our country. Even if it is not Romney’s fault that it became a failure. It still is a good example of how the whole national healthcare plan can turn into a fiscal mess.
So we shall see what happens with that over the next couple of weeks.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I don’t believe in Gallup Poll. Sarah Palin got about 73% favorable rating than Romney. Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. The Republicans are start complaining about the Romneycare this week. I agree with Nos.#3 comment.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The numbers mean nothing now. At this point in the 2005, Romney and Huckabee were both asterisks if the polling company bothered to include them at all, while Frist and Allen were up there.
We still don’t know who’s running. I don’t think Palin joins the fray and I actually think there’s a better chance than people realize that Huckabee sits out. Who knows, Ann Romney’s health might keep Mitt out.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the primaries quickly evolve into Romney vs. Pawlenty or Huckabee vs. Pawlenty.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
People who keep bringing up Romneycare as some sort of huge fiscal expense are just flat out overreaching. It is being scapgoated for the big defiect in MA by the Patrick Adm. It is only $70 million over budget in 2009 at $800 million (the former hospital fund now the private health plan subsidy fund) when projections were for $723 Million. Out of a state budget of $34 Billion, $70 million dollars is 1/5 of a percentage point. Nice try. True it costs too much but it is not bankrupting the state as some suggest.
Source:
http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/News%2520and%2520Updates/Current/Week%2520Beginning%2520March%25209%252C%25202008/Facts%2520and%2520Figures%25203%252008.doc
July 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Early frontrunners do not succeed usually. Look at George Allen.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Also if you look at how well Gov. Romney slowed gov’t growth in Massachusetts it is clear he is one of the best small government conservatives we have. Gov’t spending in Massachusetts was held to near zero growth during his tenure. Here are the numbers according to the sunshine review:
He came into office in 2003 and made corrections to the state budget (already in process) to cut in back from 2002 levels of $33.6 billion and left office at $34.1 billion (this includes the fattening up of the in-process 2007 budget that Deval Patrick undertook when he first came into office in January 2007. Along with Rudy and Pawlenty, Mitt Romney has an excellent record of holding down gov’t spending.
Source:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Massachusetts_state_budget
July 16th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I’ve been impressed with how Romney has maintained his “adult” image. He comes across as the serious candidate. That being said, I’ll bet any candidate could also easily do this – have infrequent commentary, avoid playing the pandering pundit, offer mature, informed, and insightful op-eds, etc…
Now I tried to watch Huckabee’s show “Huckabee” four times so far, and can never get through it. His show seems tailored (mostly) for the people that voted for him last time around. If Huckabee were to change anything, he probably should try to use his program to expand his influence. Currently, I get the impression that he is just cementing his position with hucksters.
Romney’s message, and more importantly how he presents his message, is better designed to entice a wider pool of potential voters. Remember how Romney has increasingly done better amongst independents, including the right-leaning independents mentioned in this poll? it isn’t surprising that his numbers are growing.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Why’d ya cut off the Pawlenty numbers? I sense a conspiracy here; Romney fans trying to disguise Pawlenty’s massive rise up the charts!
July 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The numbers for Pawlenty are pretty good too. He has held gov’t growth to just under 3% during his tenure. Shrinking in size compared to the growth of the private economy.
When he entered office the 2003 budget was about $41.3 Billion, in 2009 it is $50.8 billion.
Source:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Minnesota_state_budget
July 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
#3 Texasconserv
Romneycare was successful until it became political. A free market health reform and politics is like mixing oil and water. What is happening in Mass. was not supposed to happen. It wasn’t until the Liberals started messing with it that it started having problems. With the right leadership it can be run like it was supposed to. If you folks are Republicans, you should stand up for what Romney was trying to do and not use it as a way to promote your guy.
Obamacare is governmentcare and mired in politics, what you see is what you get and can only get worse.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
The numbers for Palin fans are not so great. In deeply Red Alaska, which spends more per-capita than any State in the nation, she has seen fit to raise Gov’t spending 7-8% annually. A small gov’t conservative she is not.
In 2007 state spending was $11.6 Billion. She raised this to $12.5 billion in 2008 and $13.4 billion in 2009.
Source:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Alaska_state_budget
In other words, if you want a small gov’t conservative on the ticket in 2012 support Romney, Pawlenty or Rudy, not Palin.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Steve,
Aren’t you omitting what happened in fiscal year 2010? I would think that would be relevant to your analysis.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am
#3 “Will republicans who want to see Romney win in 2012 bring up Romneycare?”
Of course they will! Why do you think Fox news interviewed Romney on it(I recently did a post on my blog about this: http://thecompetentconservative.com/2009/07/11/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/). It offers an alternative to “government takeover health care. And the Massachussettes plan is based on “Free Market” principles, not government. It doesn’t take private insurance away from people…AS YOU INCORRECTLY INDICATED! TexasCon, it has been quite obvious to me that you are a Huck guy and have some animosity toward Mitt by your comments both now and in the past.
It will help Mitt cause people will say “this guy’s plan may not be perfect, but he did it with government owning health care. Make no mistake, if we don’t offer a solution, the Democrats will and it won’t be good for the country.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Oops, the link got screwed up: http://thecompetentconservative.com/2009/07/11/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/
July 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
#3 Why would the numbers necessarily go down? A huge % of the country thinks healthcare needs fixing. We differ about how that should be done. Obama is using that general feeling to push through his socialist monstrosity. You are counting on most of the country to become sufficiently dogmatic (or wonkish) to parse the details. Doubtful. (You’ve seen our comparative education scores for the last 50 years, right?)
So, while we political addicts can argue whether it is sufficiently free-market, most of the rest of the country will just see that he actually got a healthcare reform passed and implemented. As the discussion gets going, there will be a few ideologues who will fail his plan, but the vast majority will be pretty pleased with it. Especially the independents who will want to be reassured that voting GOP in ’12 won’t mean giving up on fixing healthcare, or any of the other catastrophes that are likely to be Obama’s legacy.
MassCare is likely to very helpful to Romney, both in the primaries and in the general.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
P.S. Big mistake I made, I said at the end of comment #15 “WITH government help” and obviously meant to say “without government”
July 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Tommy Boy,
You are of course correct. From what I have seen projections were for about 6% in growth for the fund (still a very small percentage of the 2010 state budget but higher than we would like). However, I have had trouble finding the actual numbers. I’ll get back to you if I can get a hold of them.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
#10.Matthew:“Why’d ya cut off the Pawlenty numbers? I sense a conspiracy here; Romney fans trying to disguise Pawlenty’s massive rise up the charts!”
To be honest, I left him off because I didn’t notice him on the Gallup site. My bad. I only had eyes for the big three. I didn’t mention Newt or Barbour either, and Newt’s 14% is nothing to sneeze at compared to Huckabee’s 19%.
Yes, Pawlenty has crept up from 1% to 3%. The man is running in 2012 for sure. The only scenario I can envision him not running is where he pulls a Sanford. He should do well. I predict he will at the bare minimum set up his 2016 or 2020 run. There is a strong possibility that if he doesn’t win the nomination, he will get the VP tap instead.
Yes, Pawlenty is going places.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Hope whoever gets the GOP nomination has good economic knowledge and right now Romney is the star in that category.
The GOP still needs to ramp up their message of where they would take the country. Educate the voters of exactly what the difference is from the GOP’s vision and the Democrat’s vision. The GOP needs to shut down this “party of no” line that the dems have hung on us every time it is uttered with a comprehensive alternative plan to the socialist plan of the democrats.
Only by educating the voters from the local grass roots level and turning more of the local and state governments to a strong conservative government that is small business friendly, energy independent and fiscally responsible will the GOP be able to fight against this tidal wave of socialism of taking from the productive and giving to the non- productive.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Those numbers are interesting, but I think it’s as interesting to look at them contextually. For instance, from 1996 to 2002, Minnesota’s budget increased by 63%. In the equivalent time period, under Pawlenty, Minnesota’s budget increased 25%. Massachusett’s spending culture when Romney came in, due to having 3 Republican Governors in a row, was much more modest and Romney’s performance relative to his predescessors was less impressive.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Rush is still having a stupid attack over Palin. Sheesh.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Yes, SteveT, as we have mentioned a few times on here, Alaska spends 300% more per capita than the next biggest spender. Her supporters have claimed that Alaska is different, because its so big. Well, what you supplied is hard to argue with. She grew the budget at an alarming rate.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’m just going to reiterate what I just heard on Rush. She has 72% favorabolity, followed by Huckabee with 59% and Romney with 56%. So I have no problem with this poll.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Matthew – you make good points. However one thing is clear from looking at this, Romney and Pawlenty in very blue state’s held down gov’t spending, while Sarah Palin who talks about being a fiscal conservative signs into law budgets with huge increases in spending.
If you are a fiscal conservative you have a couple of very good choices in 2012 if both run.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Mark, I think it is a misnomer that Romney has been sitting quietly and only occasionally campaigning. In fact, there is probably no one campaigning harder. The difference is that e is really campaigning, not just promoting increased awareness. The campaign is working surgically to increase value in district and state races, and increase his perception as an idea leader and a solutions leader on strategically selected issues that support the 2011 campaign.
This differs from other who are responding to the FOX dinner bell every time it rings to wax authoritative on what Michael Jackson’s death means to America.
America can judge (is judging) which strategy works better. Let’s check back in August and future months, but over the last 4 months, Romney continues to rise, and Palin and Huckabee, who at one time led marginally, continue to flag. No one is saying it’s all over, just that some trends are establishing themselves.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
mike huckabees recent massive weight gain kind of makes him a hypocrite for all the lecturing he does about how people should live.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
#13. Alaska still needs infrastructure and whne you have such a vast amount of land to cover you are going to spend money. When you have less people that live amidst the vast land you are going to have more spending per capita.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
As you know Matthew, when you’ve followed a cut, cut, cut governorship, its more difficult to cut more.
Consequently, it should have been easy for Pawlenty to find places to cut, and he simply did not. As a matter of fact that 25% growth is pretty alarming; I hadn’t realized he was like that.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Interesting post MarK, even Mr. Limbaugh is talking about the poll. I must say on one hand, it is impressive that Mr. Romney has a 7 point lead over Mr. Huckabee. However, the bottom line is that 55% support neither so there is either room for another candidate or M & M each have a lot of ground yet to cover. Since am a better expert these days in Palintology than Huckabeetology or Romneyology, my two cents on the latter two may only be worth one cent. However, I do not think Mr. Huckabee is running all out right now, while I think he will run, he is holding some of his gun powder. The big question at the end of the day is how the 55% break down. That is probably a little too early to tell.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Romney is playing hard to get. He should keep doing it. It’s working. Everyone wants the economy fixed and they will be desperate in two years. I’m afraid the 2012 primary season will be quite dull.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Illinois,
Romney grew government by 18% in 4 years, a higher rate of increase (Pawlenty increased the budget by 11% during the same 4 years). No doubt that doesn’t alarm you at all.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
jersey, as poll after poll has shown, favorability is not anything like “I want the _____ for President”…its apples and oranges at best
July 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am
#32 asparagus, “dull” would be refreshing. It would mean the GOP is serious about combating socialism and is presenting a united front and not shooting each other.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“Rush is still having a stupid attack over Palin. Sheesh.”
Facts and truth are stupid little things Martha.
#29, It is funny Jersey how the Romneyites accuse Mrs. Palin of spending too much money and then turn around and accuse her of not giving out free lunches and free Health Care.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Seriously though…can we stop this ludicrous faux-outrage about the shabbiness of our rivals records? Or at least, if you’re going to come out with faux outrage, could you do a little research first to make sure your guy hasn’t done the same thing or worse? Both Romney and Pawlenty have good fiscal records, on balance. Pawlenty’s is probably better, if we judge by raw numbers, and state trends, but there’s a case to be made for Romney. Make that case. Or don’t. But, let’s not be blatantly dishonest.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Regarding Rush on Palin – Palin is a folksy big government Republican just like Bush that Rush also pushed on us in 2000. Maybe he just longs to have something similar back in the Whitehouse.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Steve T, if you think that Mrs. Palin is a big government Conservative, you are missing something. Interesting that you also had to take a shot at Mr. Bush. What are you going to say next? ‘Bush lied, people died.’
July 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
My mistake then, Matthew, I thought I was going by the figures Steve has put down, but I must have misread them.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Illinois are you saying favourability does not matter? At the end of the day the popular one gets the job and the homecoming queen becomes President. Of course it matters!
July 16th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Well, Ohio, Romney did save the Olympics. I mean nobody else in the entire world could have managed that great feat.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
WSJ: RomneyCare’s Failures in MA Not ‘Widely Known’; I Wonder Why?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/12/wsj-romneycares-failures-ma-not-widely-known-i-wonder-why
An editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal bemoaned the fact that the state-run health system in Massachusetts is failing, and that its implosion isn’t common knowledge.
Formally known as CommonwealthCare, the Massachusetts scheme has the political name of “RomneyCare,” in “honor” of the Bay State governor and former presidential candidate who championed its passage in 2006.
The Journal understands that the Bay State Blowup is one of the media’s least-covered stories because exposure of CommonwealthCare’s true results would make all too clear the awaiting disasters found in the various versions of ObamaCare Congress is considering for the entire country.
The Journal editorial yesterday primarily addressed what I’ll call the “free rider” problem (link to outside blog post added by me; bolds are mine):
In a rational world, the prognosis for ObamaCare would wait on the evidence in Massachusetts, given that the commonwealth’s 2006 program closely resembles what Democrats are trying to do in Washington. If the results were widely known, it might be dead on arrival.
The Massachusetts law, which was championed by former GOP Governor Mitt Romney, imposed an individual mandate, requiring nearly all residents to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty. (The exceptions are those who qualify for the state’s public program.) This was supposed to cover everybody and save money too. We’ve written before about how costs have exploded, but it also turns out that consumers have other ideas.
Well, the returns are rolling in, and a useful case study comes from the community-based health plan Harvard-Pilgrim. CEO Charlie Baker reports that his company has seen an “astonishing” uptick in people buying coverage for a few months at a time, running up high medical bills, and then dumping the policy after treatment is completed and paid for. Harvard-Pilgrim estimates that between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred about $2,400 per person in monthly medical expenses. That’s about 600% higher than Harvard-Pilgrim would have otherwise expected.
The individual mandate penalty for not having coverage is only about $900, so people seem to be gaming the Massachusetts system. “This is a problem,” Mr. Baker writes on his blog, in the understatement of the year. “It is raising the prices paid by individuals and small businesses who are doing the right thing by purchasing twelve months of health insurance, and it’s turning the whole notion of shared responsibility on its ear.”
Mr. Baker is right, though he underestimates the extent to which it is rational for people to do this, considering the government-mandated incentives. To one degree or another all insurance pools require the younger and healthier to subsidize the older and sicker, though part of the risk-sharing bargain is the hedge against unanticipated or future health problems — i.e., true insurance. The combination of guaranteed issue and community rating actively encourages parts of the healthier population to forgo coverage and thus blow up voluntary risk pools. No doubt our politicians will conclude that the solution is to raise the penalty for going uninsured, though it would be easier and more rational to let insurance markets function without mandates.
But the statist politicians who dominate the Massachusetts legislature didn’t want “easier” and “more rational”; they wanted “more controlled” and, with Ted Kennedy cheering them on (see picture above), “more national.” The failure to recognize this ultimate objective, and to thus get co-opted into concocting a scheme that he naively thought would be enough to appease the statists, is Mitt Romney’s most obvious economic policy failure as Bay State governor.
As to the media, almost nothing of what is going wrong in Massachusetts gets reported outside of New England. Even when problems do get noticed, newspapers like the Boston Globe persist in describing CommonwealthCare aka RomneyCare as a “grand experiment” and “trailblazing.” Rationing is already occurring; yet a Globe reporter recently described the 12% cost cuts necessary to stay within budget as mere “trimming.”
If the failures of state-run health care in Massachusetts were more widely known, the clear and imminent failure of what might become ObamaCare would be drop-dead obvious. That would seem to explain the statist solutions uber alles establishment media’s disinterest.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I’m Listening to Rush breaking down this Gallup Poll. He is pushing Palin and dissing Romney.(Pronouncing his name Romnay.
I’ve been listening to Rush for a long time, but he is beginning to sound like the hacks he has always railed against, and acting like a love sick school boy.
How can he justify Palin who is more than happy to campaign for Democrats, and how can he think that it is o.k. to resign as Governor half way through her term while leaving Alaska in a mess, and why is it that he thinks the Dems are afraid of her. He doesn’t even know what she stands for.
He’s lost me as a listener. All he does is bring down the GOP, incorporate himself personally into the story because of his out of control ego, and push a candidate who doesn’t even know what party she belongs to.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
And on the sixth day Romney said, “let there be Olympics,” and it was so.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’m saying that in spite of her being shown favorable now by a pretty high number, the number thinking she is ‘fit’ to be President, or ‘would be an effective President’ is far, far different! I’m favorable to Palin; I don’t think she would be an effective President…but in spite of that I’d rather have her than our current monstrosity, by far.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
No OJ, Bush grew gov’t 9% annually (most of which was domestic spending) and destroyed the GOP’s reputation for fiscal restraint. When the GOP retook congress in 1995 gov’t spending was held to about 3% annually until 2001, as a result we encountered massive budget surpluses and were able to cut taxes as well.
If one is not troubled by massive increases in Gov’t Spending (especially social spending), then I can see why this does not bother you.
The GOP does need to recover from Bush and become the party of small government again. That is the only way we will get our credibility back. We don’t need any Bush redos. There are better choices.
I am not one to blindly follow one candidate like others here. I believe in the principles of limited gov’t and social conservatism and will support candidates whose actions reflect this.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
IllinoisGuy,
Steve’s links take you a kind of wikipedia cite, where’s there’s a link to the original data. For some reason, that cite lists state+local for Minnesota, but only state for Massachusetts. The numbers he posted for Pawlenty’s budget numbers were really state+local spending. Not that it matters too much; both Massachusetts and Minnesota saw local spending increases outstrip state spending increases during our guy’s tenures because they heavily cut aid to local governments.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
What is really important about this poll is what is not reported. 34% of Republicans didn’t pick any of the Big Three. Those of us in the 34% will decide who becomes the nominee. With fully 1/3rd of the primary electorate undecided, it will be up to the candidates to woo them over, or someone else might slip in. Don’t forget, McCain won a lot of states taking only 30-40% of the vote.
The Big Three have their work cut out for them, but there is still room for the 2nd tier to manuever.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“How can he justify Palin who is more than happy to campaign for Democrats.” Wow, She never said she would be HAPPY to campaign for the Dems, rather, she would campaign for them because she is SAD about the fact that we have a few Liberal Republicans. Alaska is not in a mess! Finally Mrs. Palin does know what party she belong to, that is why she is a Conservative.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/16/romney-pac-raises-1-6m-in-six-months/?eref=politicalflipper
July 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
LOL @ Rush wasn’t he comparing Romney to President Reagan after Mitt delivered his “Faith in America” speech in December of 07?
July 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Sorry, but no good Republican would ever campaign for a Democrat. She has to think of the balance of power in Congress.
Look what is being pushed through as law under Obama. We need to work for Republican candidates so there will be checks and balances.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
You have to assume, in the favourability category, that the margin of error goes minus more than plus. So that, essentially, puts Palin at say 65% and Romney hovering around 50%. I understand your point but my point is that she can prove that she is capable to be President, it is much more difficult to convince people to like you. If I was a Romnay supporter, the favourability rating would be the number that I’d be most concerned about.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
#51,
Thanks, IlliniDude. I plan on making a FPP once all the reports are in. I am especially curious to see how HuckPAC did.
I did notice how your link is spinning like crazy trying to show why this news is great for Sarah and bad for Mitt. You don’t supposed that the writer has any biases, do you?
July 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
#52 Sean:
YES
July 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m actually not trying to spin anything…I’m just having some fun. Romney and his supporters should be proud of himself and their candidate of choice. I am pleased with where Palin is, I think her favourability ratings will help her in the end…BUT it is WAY TOO EARLY to tell!!!
July 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Pretty bad numbers for Romney. His favorables are the lowest among the top 3. Republicans just don’t trust the guy, and for good reason. Expect his numbers to decline as the truth about Romneycare begins to hit the grassroots.
And Romney’s favorables among the general public are anemic at best — Huckabee just slaughters the Mitten here. It also bears mentioning that Mittens had a 46% disapproval rating when he ran in 2008. That’s even worse than Palin.
I hope Mitt doesn’t run. I actually like the guy personally , and don’t want to see him suffer another humiiliation.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
[...] Mark B. Lowe provided some interesting analysis on the new Gallup poll, but upon reading the summary I noticed that Dr. Jim Clifton’s organization provided a slightly different analysis on the results. [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Jersey,
The question “Whom do you like” is different from the question “Whom do you think should be President”. There is a large number of people I really like and admire. I know less than a handful of people I would trust in the Oval Office. So “favorability” ratings mean absolutely nothing to me. Whenever I see someone making the argument, “Yes, but my candidate favorables are better than so-and-so’s”, what I hear is “Yes, but my candidate has the moral victory.”
The bottom line is a moral victor is someone who lost.
As a snapshot, Palin’s numbers are just fine. As a trend over time, however, they are all trending downward. I am sure you agree that if it continues, it is not good for her. If she truly is interested in the Oval Office — debatable, but a subject for a different post — she needs to turn that around.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Pitty. I’m pulling for Kay Baily. I hope she pulls it out in Texas.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
#61, KBH is a big government Bushie….we need less of those leaders in our party.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Steve T. I must tell you that your facts might be dead on but fall on deaf eyes and ears!
July 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Perry is a Palinista. next.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Perry became a Palinista the minute he faced a competitive primary.
Up to that point, he was actually pretty moderate.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Kaye Bailey Hutchinson has a lifetime 90.4% American Conservative Union Score (ACU). We desperatly need more of that! However, I have not researched Perry so I am neutral on the subject.
Link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973145/posts
July 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Well here’s my unofficial common sense analysis, Mitt Romney is far and away the sharpest, most qualified of the three to get us out of this mess. Should he drop out of the top three, and say, Gingrich move up – I’m looking for that third party again.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Liz,
Don’t write off Pawlenty just yet.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
#67:
A vote for a third-party candidate, no matter the stupid reason, is a vote for Obama. Any Republican candidate is better than the current occupant of the White House.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Perry looked the other way when the Texas CPS unconstitutionally rounded up every child as well as adult women at the FLDS compound. these women and children were held against their will and refused permission to speak to their families. Rick Perry may have kept taxes down but he failed to uphold the Constiution in my book. I will not be voting for him for governor.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Steve,
Here’s the last budget she authorized for the upcoming fiscal year
http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/10_omb/budget/10%20PDFs/FY2010_Fiscal_Summary_5-20-09.pdf
The budget is $8.4 billion, which is less than the amount spent in the fiscal year prior to her entering office according to your chart.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Kay Bailey Hutchinson supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act and SCHIP, two measures that arguably have more impact socially and economically than the stimulus put forward by Barack Obama.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Tommy, those are just two examples…there are many more. On FP, KBH assisted Joe Biden’s plan on partitioning Iraq.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Tommy Boy thanks for the update. From your data, it looks like including the permanent fund spending is targeted for $10.14 Billion minus some $1 billion or so Public Education Fund rebate so that spending may be as little as $9.08 Billion.
On its face it looks like a nice turn around for Gov. Palin’s fiscal reputation.
As it was neccesitated by a 34% drop in revenues at the state level that must also be taken into account. We’ll also have to see what actual final 2010 spending will be as there are always little budgetary angles that are used to make implented budgets look better.
I remain a little wary that during the good times of 2007 and 2008 that she felt it was necessary to grow the budgets as much as she did.
However, this will be a good arguement on your candidate’s behalf that she has also been able to show some good fiscal restraint. Thanks for the info!
July 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Steve,
But you do agree with this statement though that “the final budget she submitted was smaller than the budget she inherited from her predecessor in real dollars.”
July 16th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
TB – Yes. I’ll obviously give you that.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
#60, marK I don’t disagree with you that she is trending downward. As long as you acknowledge there are many reasons, that will be in the past, that could explain why. I would still rather be in her position in favorability at 70% than in Romney’s at 55%, a 15% difference. Fit to be President there is a 5% difference…I’m still happier with Palin’s numbers. She has been on the national scene for 10, 11 months and she is still pretty well liked considering the mud she had thrown at her. Mitt has been on the national scene for well over 2 years and people just haven’t seemed to warm up to him…not that 55% is a bad number but it’s no 70% She has plenty of time to prove herself to be fit, if Mitt hasn’t shown his likeable personality by now, then what chance does he have. The majority of voters do not follow the ins and outs of politics like many on this board does but they do know what they like.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Some of you are trying to make a lot out of the favorability data, and that’s fine, but lets me a lot more honest about what they tell us.
Palin’s is pretty much what it is, with only 7% with no opinion.
Romney’s and Huckabee’s are different. I’ll just speak to Romney’s but the same can be said of Huckabee’s, in all fairness.
Favorable 56%
Unfavorable 17%
No Opinion 28%
Now, the 28% is the big question mark. If they would split according to those already holding opinions, then Mitt would end up with:
Favorable 77%
Unfavorable 24%
Now, let’s leave 7% with no opinion, we have:
Favorable 73%
Unfavorable 22%
No opinion 7%
That’s almost identical to Sarah Palin. Now let’s take it to an extreme pessimistic for Mitt and assume that Mitt only splits 50% for the remaining 28%; we have:
Favorable 70%
Unfavorable 31%
As you can see, when you honestly look at these numbers, they look pretty darned good for Mitt, and Huckabee too, for that matter.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
78 – Nice breakdown, IG.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
#77.Jersey:“I don’t disagree with you that she is trending downward. As long as you acknowledge there are many reasons, that will be in the past, that could explain why.”
Consider it acknowledged.
I will re-emphasize that I think the “favorable/unfavorable” metric is far too nebulous to be of much good in predicting the outcome of an election. It certainly is a factor, but the bottom-line is still the bottom-line. Who gets the votes? Who doesn’t? In the final analysis, that is all that matters.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Perry may be Romney’s biggest danger in 2012. Interesting how the wheels have turned. If so which way will the Bushies go? Are they still close to Rick?
George Allen was NEVER the frontrunner! Find me a poll where he was EVER in double digits and I won’t post for 100 days. Rudy of course was.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Another thing, Heath. Romney would NEVER make such a stupid mistake as Allen did. I’m glad he showed us how inept he was that early so we didn’t waste any time thinking he was the guy.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Tommy, being a woman, I think equal pay for equal work is very important. Maybe it’s not in your narrow world, but it is in mine.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:03 am
And making sure kids are insureed. That’s a bad thing? Sometimes we need to take a better look at compassion. I don’t want welfare for everyone, but I want to make sure children who’s parents can’t afford insurance for their children, can purchase some at a low cost.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:58 am
My understanding was that Duval and the Dems in Mass. ran the plan into less effectiveness. Mitt is not a stupid man. You think he would stand by the plan only to have it blow up his chances at the Presidency? Why don’t you guys really research the original plan instead of all these arguments? Tell me how Sarah can beat Obama in the debates? I give Huck the edge there, because he will have a field day with Obama, we know what he did to Mitt over Mormonism. Just imagine, the floor show between those two? Now, we have Mitt, classy, smart, business expertise like no other, they can’t even carry his brief case, known for his private sector success,raises more money than the others, known for his turnaround and fix it qualities, and then the Olympics… What are you people thinking? I want a person who believes and knows he is dedicated to this country and has the ability to keep us safe, Look at the man’s stature. He is perfect and I know Mitt believes strongly in the Law of the Land. I want a serious, well intended leader who is fair minded and not vindictive and has moral fiber…trustworthy and will keep us safe…Romney 2012 Perfect, No, but neither are the others…Think about it!!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 8:08 am
7 Actually normally frontrunners do succeed in the GOP, from Nixon to Ford to Reagan To Bush to Dole to Bush Jnr. Even Mccain was frontrunner before Rudy got in as the new moderate frontrunner (George Allen never topped the polls). 2008 was always going to produce a moderate candidate after W and Mccain got the nod once Rudy went libertartian.