MO-PPP: Obama leads Palin by 3; trails Huck by 7, Romney by 6, Gingrich by 1

[Mr. Morden]

PPP poll of Missouri:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MO_12021118.pdf

Mike Huckabee 49% Barack Obama 42%
Mitt Romney 47% Barack Obama 41%
Newt Gingrich 45% Barack Obama 44%
Sarah Palin 43% Barack Obama 46%

fav/unfav #s among all voters:

Mike Huckabee 51%/29% for +22%.
Mitt Romney 30%/42% for -12%.
Sarah Palin 39%/53% for -14%.
Newt Gingrich 33%/48% for -15%.

From PPP's writeup:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/12/mixed-reviews-in-missouri-for-obama.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

more evidence Palin probably will flame out a lot quicker than people think

[memphis]

More evidence MO is no longer a battleground state.

[Skill and Chance]

More evidence MO is no longer a battleground state.

It really looks like MO is asserting itself as part of the traditional South, while NC and especially VA are rapidly diverging from it.

[California8429]

More evidence MO is no longer a battleground state.

It really looks like MO is asserting itself as part of the traditional South, while NC and especially VA are rapidly diverging from it.

which seems odd, especially considering VA elected McDonnell and had pick-ups for Congress.

I just think the voters think the republican field is weak (though I don't think there is anybody they would actually like) Voters tend to be no voters than actively looking for a good candidate.

[Skill and Chance]

More evidence MO is no longer a battleground state.

It really looks like MO is asserting itself as part of the traditional South, while NC and especially VA are rapidly diverging from it.

which seems odd, especially considering VA elected McDonnell and had pick-ups for Congress.

I just think the voters think the republican field is weak (though I don't think there is anybody they would actually like) Voters tend to be no voters than actively looking for a good candidate.

Regarding VA, I don't think there has actually been that much of a  shift back from 2008.  When VA elected Warner in 2001, would you say that was an indication it was getting ready to vote against Bush in 2004?  I don't think so.  VA hasn't elected a governor from the same party as the president since the 1970's.  Three congressional districts did flip R, but they were all at least R+5 PVI and the Democrats didn't have any business holding them long term unless there was a very different map.  Notably, the D+2 district didn't flip, while in other parts of the country many of these districts did.  VA certainly isn't moving any further left, but it's hardly turning hard right either. 

[DrScholl]

Missouri will still be close in 2012, regardless of who the nominee is. If it was really becoming anywhere close to being like southern states, then even Palin would have been leading Obama.

[California8429]

More evidence MO is no longer a battleground state.

It really looks like MO is asserting itself as part of the traditional South, while NC and especially VA are rapidly diverging from it.

which seems odd, especially considering VA elected McDonnell and had pick-ups for Congress.

I just think the voters think the republican field is weak (though I don't think there is anybody they would actually like) Voters tend to be no voters than actively looking for a good candidate.

Regarding VA, I don't think there has actually been that much of a  shift back from 2008.  When VA elected Warner in 2001, would you say that was an indication it was getting ready to vote against Bush in 2004?  I don't think so.  VA hasn't elected a governor from the same party as the president since the 1970's.  Three congressional districts did flip R, but they were all at least R+5 PVI and the Democrats didn't have any business holding them long term unless there was a very different map.  Notably, the D+2 district didn't flip, while in other parts of the country many of these districts did.  VA certainly isn't moving any further left, but it's hardly turning hard right either. 

That is my point, yes it is a toss-up, but I don't think we'll see it more blue than in 2008.

[pbrower2a]

Obama loses decisively to Huckabee or Romney, has a toss-up against Gingrich, and  clearly beats Palin in Missouri.

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

I can almost see a campaign ad that shows some highly-respected female leaders ... Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Victoria, Eleanor Roosevelt, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, Angela Merkel -- but Sarah Palin isn't one of them.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama loses decisively to Huckabee or Romney, has a toss-up against Gingrich, and  clearly beats Palin in Missouri.

I'm glad we have you here to explain these things to us.

[GLPman]

Obama loses decisively to Huckabee or Romney, has a toss-up against Gingrich, and  clearly beats Palin in Missouri.

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

I can almost see a campaign ad that shows some highly-respected female leaders ... Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Victoria, Eleanor Roosevelt, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, Angela Merkel -- but Sarah Palin isn't one of them.

Just another pbrower post that fails to offer evidence and makes little sense.

[GMantis]

This is not a good result for any of them, except Romney.

[Saxwsylvania]

Hmm.  Obama can't break 46%, even in his 'least competitive' matchup.

I also think that Palin has a higher floor than most candidates.  If they're sticking with her now, they're likely to stick with her to the end.

[Whacker77]

more evidence Palin probably will flame out a lot quicker than people think

I completely disagree.  Fact and reason have not slowed the Palin juggernaut one bit.  The more proof is shown she can't win, the more supportive her supporters become.  Recently, they have begun to make the comparison to Reagan.  At NRO, commenters to posts have said there is nothing different between Obama quitting the Senate to become president and Palin quitting the governorship to become a media star and then run for president.

She is the prohibative frontrunner.  Despite all of the gaffes, she is still a leader in national polls and she is the leader in Iowa and South Carolina.  Since she is going to skip New Hampshire, she needs to win the two states and she will be the nominee.  Trust me, she knows this and that's why she is running.  Because the core conservative base is so strongly for her, it's not much of a challenge for her.

Only a collapse by the current challengers and the arrival of a white knight can stop Palin.  My party is determined to win by losing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

more evidence Palin probably will flame out a lot quicker than people think

I completely disagree.  Fact and reason have not slowed the Palin juggernaut one bit.  The more proof is shown she can't win, the more supportive her supporters become.  Recently, they have begun to make the comparison to Reagan.  At NRO, commenters to posts have said there is nothing different between Obama quitting the Senate to become president and Palin quitting the governorship to become a media star and then run for president.

She is the prohibative frontrunner.  Despite all of the gaffes, she is still a leader in national polls and she is the leader in Iowa and South Carolina.  Since she is going to skip New Hampshire, she needs to win the two states and she will be the nominee.  Trust me, she knows this and that's why she is running.  Because the core conservative base is so strongly for her, it's not much of a challenge for her.

Only a collapse by the current challengers and the arrival of a white knight can stop Palin.  My party is determined to win by losing.

1)   I think you’re underestimating the sophistication of the nomination process.  It usually forces voters to set aside their self pride and try on different suits to see which one best fits.
2)   There is no reason for an unbiased person to pick Palin over Pence once Pence becomes more well known.

[Mjh]

Nothing to see here. Missouri is obviously trending solidly to the right.

I would be suprised if McCaskill is re-elected.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

How the hell old are you?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

How the hell old are you?

Now now, let's not go there.  Although I disagree with pbrower too, I wouldn't be too surprised if those states trended a little Democratic due to their low unemployment rates.  Maybe. 

[Whacker77]

1)   I think you’re underestimating the sophistication of the nomination process.  It usually forces voters to set aside their self pride and try on different suits to see which one best fits.
2)   There is no reason for an unbiased person to pick Palin over Pence once Pence becomes more well known.

You just used a word that is contradictory to everything about Palin: sophistacation.  Nothing about her popularity or the strong support she recieves from the core base, Rush, Mark Levin, Hannity, or Laura Ingraham is sophisticated.  It is all about not being elite or a cut above the masses.  It is vulgar populism.  If sophistication ruled the day, Palin would be nowhere after quitting her job.

As for Pence, I like him as well, but how does he survive what will likely be a fourth or fifth place finish in Iowa.  Maybe he catches fire, but at the expense of whom?  Palin?  No.  Gingrich?  A little.  Huckabee?  No.  Romney?  Possibly.  I don't see how he raises money with Palin sucking up all of the oxygen.

Among the current crop, I do hope you are right.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1)   I think you’re underestimating the sophistication of the nomination process.  It usually forces voters to set aside their self pride and try on different suits to see which one best fits.
2)   There is no reason for an unbiased person to pick Palin over Pence once Pence becomes more well known.

You just used a word that is contradictory to everything about Palin: sophistacation.  Nothing about her popularity or the strong support she recieves from the core base, Rush, Mark Levin, Hannity, or Laura Ingraham is sophisticated.  It is all about not being elite or a cut above the masses.  It is vulgar populism.  If sophistication ruled the day, Palin would be nowhere after quitting her job.

yoooooooooo - that's why I believe Palin will run out of oxygen - she's not sophisticated enough to make it through the primary process.  Her "you betcha's" ain't gonna seem so "flippin' fun" next to the other GOP contenders.  And the Rush's and Hannity's and Focus on the Family have NEVER had any sway with the GOP primary process. 

Palin is going to become Harriet Miers 2.0 - the GOP talking heads will talk her up, but the base will long for someone else once the process begins.  And the shift of perception may happen long before any votes are cast in Iowa.

---

As for Pence, I like him as well, but how does he survive what will likely be a fourth or fifth place finish in Iowa.  Maybe he catches fire, but at the expense of whom?  Palin?  No.  Gingrich?  A little.  Huckabee?  No.  Romney?  Possibly.  I don't see how he raises money with Palin sucking up all of the oxygen.

There are plenty of paths for Pence, but I'll offer this one:  Pence initially takes his first bite out of the support for the anti-Palin hopefuls (Gingrich, Huck, some Romney).  Then once the campaign for Iowa heats up, he starts raping Palin of her Tea Party support, with the dam bursting when DeMint backs Pence instead of Palin.

And Pence can kill Thune with a single blow:  "Senator Thune, you voted for TARP!"  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Thune doesn't run, seeing too many opponents and his vote for TARP.

[nkpolitics1279]

During the 2000 Presidential Election- Gore-D lost MO to Bush 43 by a 50-47 percent margin. Gore-D lost VA to Bush 43 by a 53-44 percent margin.
In 2004. Bush-43 carried MO by a 53-46 percent margin. and VA by a 54-46 percent margin. Bush's performance in VA remained the same from 2000 to 2004 but improved in MO.

[Mr. Morden]

She is the prohibative frontrunner.  Despite all of the gaffes, she is still a leader in national polls and she is the leader in Iowa and South Carolina. 

She hasn't led a single poll in Iowa.

[Associate Justice PiT]

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

How the hell old are you?

Now now, let's not go there.  Although I disagree with pbrower too, I wouldn't be too surprised if those states trended a little Democratic due to their low unemployment rates.  Maybe. 

     Trending Democratic is somewhat different from being likely Democratic victories, which is what pbrower said.

[Whacker77]

She is the prohibitive frontrunner.  Despite all of the gaffes, she is still a leader in national polls and she is the leader in Iowa and South Carolina. 

She hasn't led a single poll in Iowa.

I thought I had seen some that said she was leading.  Oh well.  Regardless, the caucuses are about passion.  Palinistas have passion for Sarah.  There is no passion for any other candidate.  I stick by my belief that none of the current crop will be able to approach her in the polling by late summer 2011.  That is going to set off one of the most contentious behind the scenes fights to stop her either through subterfuge or a white knight as I'm calling it.

As for sophistication, if it hasn't stopped Palin by now, why believe it will?  Her support has only grown over the last year.  I find it troubling to say the least, but the supporters of her are as loyal and vocal as the Ronbots are.  The Palinistas are just higher in number.  If Huck doesn't run, her national support will shoot to the mid 30's with the Lilliputians left to bite at her ankles.  Is it really believable that negative attacks from Romney and Newt will slow her down?  Heck, Romney ran negative ad after negative ad in 2008 and they didn't work.

Until I see credible, big name Republican politicians hounding her, she has the strongest of strong hands.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

President Obama likely wins a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 -- likely the two Dakotas, Nebraska except for NE-03, and Kansas.

How the hell old are you?

Now now, let's not go there.  Although I disagree with pbrower too, I wouldn't be too surprised if those states trended a little Democratic due to their low unemployment rates.  Maybe.  

     Trending Democratic is somewhat different from being likely Democratic victories, which is what pbrower said.

I know, which is why I said I didn't agree with him exactlty.  However, I see why he would think Dems will do better in those states.