PPP: Obama remains ahead of all Republicans

[Tender Branson]

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 49%
Disapprove...................................................... 43%

...

Barack Obama................................................ 47%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 42%

Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Mike Huckabee ............................................... 42%

Barack Obama................................................ 48%
Mitch Daniels .................................................. 34%

Barack Obama................................................ 52%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 38%

Barack Obama................................................ 54%
Sarah Palin ..................................................... 37%

Barack Obama................................................ 53%
Donald Trump ................................................. 35%

...

Barack Obama................................................ 46%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 33%
Donald Trump ................................................. 16%

...

Do you think Osama bin Laden is dead or still alive?

Dead ............................................................... 85%
Still alive.......................................................... 7%

...

PPP surveyed 814 American voters from May 5th to 8th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.4%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.

PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0511424.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Maybe as I suggest in gubernatorial approvals, the gap means more than does the raw approval.

At this stage it will be difficult for any republican to defeat President Obama. There just is nobody in the GOP who is free of a regional weakness that the Obama campaign can't exploit. The best that a Republican nominee can hope for in the late summer or early autumn of 2012 that isn't a catastrophe for America as a whole is that President Obama has locked up about 260 electoral votes with maybe eight states that absolutely must be won.

Anyone who thinks that defeating this President is worth a North Korean nuke exploding in Seoul, Iran invading and taking over Iraq, or a repeat of the 1929-1933 meltdown needs his head examined.

The Republican ideal would be a new Ronald Reagan who has no regional weakness and can assuage fears about any extremism that the Radical Left saw in him... but there obviously is no such person this time.

Jon Huntsman is probably the best of the lot, and he really has little chance.

The choice between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee is 'how are you going to lose'? A good analogy in chess is to a situation called Zugzwang -- one player isn't in a bad position as it is, but must make a move which allows a situation of sure defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

With the others it is unmitigated disaster in which the President has a huge nationwide lead that results in a landslide in the popular vote and a range of results from a 2008-style win (the President wins almost enough states by margins in excess of 10% and enough by margins of 7% or more with a comparatively small number of 'close' states) to one in which the interstate polarization shrinks but he wins more states (take a look at FDR vs. Dewey, 1944) -- if not a blowout at both levels as by incumbents against Landon, Goldwater, McGovern, or Mondale. 

Newt Gingrich is a callow opportunist. Donald Trump is a political gadfly. Sarah Palin has no credibility. Newly-introduced Mitch Daniels must be perfect in every way from now until November 2012 to even approach having a chance.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Anyone who thinks that defeating this President is worth a North Korean nuke exploding in Seoul, Iran invading and taking over Iraq, or a repeat of the 1929-1933 meltdown needs his head examined.

no one makes me lulz my pants quite like pbrower2a

[Lambsbread]

I don't think people know enough about Mitch Daniels though, so that's why his numbers are so low.

[pbrower2a]

I don't think people know enough about Mitch Daniels though, so that's why his numbers are so low.

It's still a huge gap:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The cause may be different from the cause for gaps of similar size between President Obama and either Gingrich, Palin, or Trump, whom Americans know well -- perhaps too well for the chances of those political figures to win against President Obama.

48-34 implies that even with 18% undecided, Mitch Daniels must gain 15% of the 18% while President Obama loses nothing, which is nearly impossible, or for the President to fade badly with a substantial gain by Daniels. To be sure, much can happen without any reason behind it, but even as weak as the chances that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have, Mitch Daniels would have an even bigger hole out of which to dig. Add to that -- he is little known outside of Indiana except for the Toll Road deal that is terribly unpopular in both Ohio and Michigan.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Maybe as I suggest in gubernatorial approvals, the gap means more than does the raw approval.

At this stage it will be difficult for any republican to defeat President Obama. There just is nobody in the GOP who is free of a regional weakness that the Obama campaign can't exploit. The best that a Republican nominee can hope for in the late summer or early autumn of 2012 that isn't a catastrophe for America as a whole is that President Obama has locked up about 260 electoral votes with maybe eight states that absolutely must be won.

Anyone who thinks that defeating this President is worth a North Korean nuke exploding in Seoul, Iran invading and taking over Iraq, or a repeat of the 1929-1933 meltdown needs his head examined.

The Republican ideal would be a new Ronald Reagan who has no regional weakness and can assuage fears about any extremism that the Radical Left saw in him... but there obviously is no such person this time.

Jon Huntsman is probably the best of the lot, and he really has little chance.

The choice between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee is 'how are you going to lose'? A good analogy in chess is to a situation called Zugzwang -- one player isn't in a bad position as it is, but must make a move which allows a situation of sure defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

With the others it is unmitigated disaster in which the President has a huge nationwide lead that results in a landslide in the popular vote and a range of results from a 2008-style win (the President wins almost enough states by margins in excess of 10% and enough by margins of 7% or more with a comparatively small number of 'close' states) to one in which the interstate polarization shrinks but he wins more states (take a look at FDR vs. Dewey, 1944) -- if not a blowout at both levels as by incumbents against Landon, Goldwater, McGovern, or Mondale. 

Newt Gingrich is a callow opportunist. Donald Trump is a political gadfly. Sarah Palin has no credibility. Newly-introduced Mitch Daniels must be perfect in every way from now until November 2012 to even approach having a chance.

Depends on the strength of the president, not the candidate. The GOP has no truly superb (in terms of winning, that is, not in terms of ideological purity) candidates that could beat Obama on their own merit, they only have candidates who could ride a wave of anti-Obama sentiment to victory backed by whatever base they get on their own.

Really, barring hated candidates (like Palin and Trump), most of these guys could beat Obama if the wind was blowing the right way. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Romney would get more moderates on his side, but conservatives might not show up to back him. Huckabee would have the opposite issue. Mitch could do anything depending on how he presents himself over the campaign. Paul (who really ought to be a regular at this point going by how he has been polling vs Obama) is the one GOP candidate who regularly beats Obama with Independents (or at least does better with them than other GOP runners), but lacks a bit more among regular Republicans, is very strong among men but is pitifully weak among women.