|

Fox poll: Obama would lose in 2012 to no-name candidate, but he’d trounce Romney, Palin, Gingrich or any teabagger

 673-s518-obama_haiti_earthquake_sff_embedded_prod_affiliate_98.jpg

It’s way too early for polls on the 2012 presidential race, but THIS STUFF from a Fox News poll is pretty interesting.

An excerpt:

With the president having been in office for about a year, 43 percent of Americans say they would vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the 2012 election were held today, which is unchanged from October, yet is down from 52 percent who said they would re-elect him in April.

All in all, 47 percent of Americans say they would vote for someone else rather than re-electing President Obama, up from 31 percent in April.

Moreover, the number saying they would “definitely” vote to re-elect Obama has declined — going from 37 percent in April to 26 percent in October to 23 percent in the new poll.

Among Democrats, 46 percent say they would “definitely” vote to re-elect Obama, down from 69 percent in April. Similarly, among people who voted for Obama in the 2008 election, the poll shows 43 percent would “definitely” vote to re-elect him, down from 57 percent.

In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, President Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested.

By 47 percent to 35 percent Obama bests former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The president has an even wider edge over former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (55 percent to 31 percent), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (53 percent to 29 percent).

Finally, twice as many people say they would vote for Obama (48 percent) as would back a candidate from the Tea Party movement (23 percent).

Share:

12 Comments

  1. Juice: Wake up. Every cent spent by any government at any level for any purpose amounts to “redistribution” of the wealth. You act as if Obama and the Democrats invented that concept.

    Granted, some of that redistribution seems to have been wasteful. If you went to public schools, for example, they failed to teach you how to spell “martyr.”

  2. Is it possible for you liberals to ever make a point without resorting to name calling? Very shallow.

  3. Pat…you are an arrogant ass. , plain and simple….and you should knock off the “teabagger” comments…it’s a term adopted by the MSM to defame constitutionalists and libertarians…BTW…..you should learn what “global redistribution of wealth” really means….until then..shut your sauce sucking mouth….

  4. Al (comment No. 4) should talk to paul (comment no. 5) about name-calling and references to my “sauce sucking mouth.”

  5. Paul was not really name calling. He is just master of the obvious. Juice being an engineer actually has to perform a duty and get it right or go hungry. Liberals like Pat could never understand being held accountable for an actual responsibility.

  6. Blue_dog_dem

    Pat, Let’s be honest, I can’t see ANY Republican whom you would find acceptable. Right? The latest talk is Senator John Thune.

  7. Pat and Peanut are embarrasing themselves all over the loss of a single senate seat in a previous liberal strong hold.

    When the name calling, which Pat justifies and Peanut is unable to personally control, is returned in kind they use that as justification of their misguided view that all conservatives are name calling bigots.

    It really is revealing boys, keep it up. Your as thick headed and myopic as your leaders in D.C. that have squandered their once in a generation opportunity to lead.

  8. well, you know …it’s typical “liberal” (which is a poltically correct term for marxist) behavior to get offended when the names get fired back at them…and as far as “ignorant hillbillies at their meetings foaming at the mouth to hang a black man?”…give me some of what you’re smoking…mine apparently isn’t sufficient to cause the brain damage required for me to agree with your logic

  9. Why Do Some on Left Demonize Dissent?
    Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:42 pm – December 15, 2009.
    Filed under: Bush-hatred, Conservative Discrimination, Liberal Intolerance, Mean-spirited leftists, Palin Derangement Syndrome
    As the folks at Hillbuzz are learning, so entrenched is the hatred some people feel for Sarah Palin that they simply can’t reason with anyone who has a kind word to say for that charismatic Republican and accomplished reformer. They’re not content just to disagree with her policies, they must needs define her as a horrible, no good, very bad woman. She’s not just wrong on the issues, she’s been a failure as a politician and is dishonest and unkind to boot. Plus she wears army boots!

    Why can’t some on the left just agree to disagree? There are indeed many who do. (I’m fortunate to count a good number of these fine fellows (and gals) as friends.) But, yet whenever anyone raises his (or her) voice in dissent, some on the left are quick to pounce, demonizing that person, often in the most vicious terms.

    Considering the treatment Joe Lieberman has received from the leftosphere, Darleen Click asks and observes

    So what is the Left to do with people who are obviously unenlightened and have the audacity to disagree? They can’t be mistaken, so they must be evil or stupid.

    Can’t they just be smart people who have reached different conclusions on certain issues? Why must some define their ideological adversaries (and even their occasional allies) as evil and dumb?

  10. i agree xpdoc……but really what amazes me is that people get so caught up in who is “left” or who is “right”…but people fail to realize there reallly is no choice in this country except to keep payiong your ever increasing taxes to corrupt politicians who serve the corporate and banking interests…not the people of the united states.

  11. Quentink

    Paul and the rest- Yesterday the supreme court ended the American century with their vote on campaign financing. They will control the outcome of every election from here on out. It will be the second coming of the age of robber barron’s. The railroad tycoons will be replaced with big oil but the average citizem will have no voice. if Exxon were to spend %10 of last quarter’s profit’s they would control every radio and TV spot available. They would be able to pick the candidate that supports them and say anything they like about their opposition, burying them. And if this insures these type of gross profits why would they not spend? If you think this vote is a good thing just wait and see.

  12. Peanut: No more STFU, OK?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>