Obama Virtually Tied With Generic Republican Candidate In 2012: POLL

With nearly three years to go before the 2012 presidential election, President Obama's hold on the White House appears to be in jeopardy, according to the results of a Gallup Poll released Wednesday.

Registered voters nationwide favor Obama by a slim margin -- 44 percent to 42 percent -- over a generic Republican candidate. That gap is within the poll's 4 percentage point margin of error. Three percent said they would vote for a different candidate, and 11 percent had no opinion.

Among all adults, Obama leads a generic Republican by just one point, according to the Gallup survey.

WIth no obvious Republican frontrunner and increasing speculation about whether Sarah Palin is preparing for a presidential bid in 2012, the poll also provides a snapshot of which candidates Republican voters would prefer as their party's nominee. Topping the list is former Massachusetts governor and one-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

According to a sample of 490 Republicans and Republican leaners, Romney leads his fellow GOPers with 14 percent support. Sarah Palin comes in second with 11 percent. Perhaps more surprisingly, recently-sworn-in Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown received 4 percent, ahead of former presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is often mentioned as a leading 2012 candidate.

In all, 36 percent of Republicans surveyed said they had no opinion about which candidate they want to be their party's nominee in 2012.

Here's a full breakdown of the Republican candidate results:

Mitt Romney: 14%

Sarah Palin: 11%

John McCain: 7%

Scott Brown: 7%

Mike Huckabee: 3%

Newt Gingrich: 3%

Ron Paul: 2%

Tim Pawlenty: 1%

Bob McDonnell: 1%

Fred Thompson: 1%

Bobby Jindal: 1%

Other: 10%

None (vol.): 6 %

No opinion: 36 %

The Gallup Poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,025 adults across the country between February 1 and 3, 2010 and has a 4 percentage point margin of error. The ranking of GOP candidates was based on a sample of 490 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and had a 5 percentage point margin of error.

Comments

[Doofus]

12:11 PM on 02/14/2010

Just as last time, it will be interesting to watch the GOP nomination struggle,
see WHO they can come up with who isn't too offensive to party members,
a party supported of 20-25% of the electorate, maybe a third of the total vote.

Scott 'Studley' Brown, 2012 - Keep on Truckin', You Betcha!

[yourmomscalling]

04:00 PM on 02/12/2010

HE IS GETTING THE GIANT BOOT FROM ME

[yourmomscalling]

03:59 PM on 02/12/2010

LOLOL not in my book

[jesuslovesObama]

02:32 PM on 02/12/2010

This poll is a waste of time. Obama has been under heavy fire for a year and there is no GOP candidate in sight. Palin? I don't think so. If this was a basketball game, it would only be the end of the first quarter. There is plenty of time to turn this baby around. Expect a strong comeback and eventual victory.

[Savanna]

01:55 PM on 02/12/2010

The thing that is wrong with Washington right now is that everyone is trying to position themselves to get re elected and I do not include the President in this effort..but Congress. If elected officials would stop this behavior and act like grown ups who care about the American people instead of themselves then our government would be better and we as Americans would be better. Who gives a flip about
two years from now..it is today that we need to face and ask what can we do to make ourselves and our nation better..not tomorrow but today. If we do that then the future will take care of itself.

[StopMakingSense2]

01:35 PM on 02/12/2010

America gets the government it deserves. Evidently we have been very bad for a long time... I wonder what it is we did that was so naughty?

[kimleehan]

01:16 PM on 02/12/2010

So let me get this strait, President Obama is not an American citizen and Richard Reid is an American citizen, Am I missing something here.

[hatrickpenry]

01:22 PM on 02/12/2010

You got the first half correct. Details to follow this year.

[taddles]

01:52 PM on 02/12/2010

Almost funny, what about the second part, I suppose you're one of those "Reid was an American so he can be Marandized" morans. You need to spend a few minutes actually reading your constitution.

[TheUSofA]

01:03 PM on 02/12/2010

2012 is less of a concern than the mid-term elections.

With huge losses there and an inability to pas any legislation, 2012 may wind up being difficult for Obama and the Dems. Continued watered down policy is not going to get the enthusiasm, energy and donations Obama and the Dems will need. He needs to start fighting and dump Rahm and Co. too.

[snesich]

12:53 PM on 02/12/2010

Unfortunately for the Republicans, they can't run "Generic Republican" in 2012. They'll have to come up with an actual human being to oppose Barack Obama. And that's when reality will hit them.

When all of your candidates stink---from the Mormon who threw thousands out of their jobs to enrich himself in "business deals" to the low-IQ, 2 year former governor, to various other clowns, "the GOP lineup" is a pretty sorry one.

No matter how poorly Obama does---and he's bound to do better soon---he's a pretty sure bet for re-election in 2012.

[republicanforlife]

01:46 PM on 02/12/2010

And with republican control of both the house and senate it dosent matter who is holding the oval office.
Ask Slick bill.

[ContrarianLibertarian]

02:07 PM on 02/12/2010

You think the GOP will win majorities in the House and Senate? In 2010?

I don't. I think the House is in play -- though it will still take a massive landslide for the GOP to regain a majority. I honestly don't think the Senate is in play.

[snesich]

03:24 PM on 02/12/2010

But there isn't "Republican control of the house and senate". And there won't be if the Democrats succeed in pushing through legislation that actually helps average working Americans.

Which is, of course, why the Republicans are using every means possible to derail every single piece of legislation the Democrats are trying to pass, no matter how moderate and watered-down it is. It's a deliberate and cynical attempt by Republicans to get back into power.

The Republicans are hoping that the American voters will say, "Look, at those incompetent Democrats. We gave them power and they've accomplished nothing!" and that they won't understand that the Republicans are the ones who kept the Democrats from succeeding by their unprecedented abuse of the Senate filibuster.

But the Republican tactics may not work. A nationwide poll, published yesterday, had 62 percent of the voters saying Obama was trying to work with Congressional Republicans, while the same percentage said that Republicans were not trying to work with Obama.

The public is beginning to understand why no progress is being made: it's called Republican Obstruction. If that message gets out there, the GOP will make few gains, if any, in November.

[ContrarianLibertarian]

02:04 PM on 02/12/2010

A "sure bet for re-election"?

I honestly have no idea what kind of political condition Barack Obama will be in for the 2012 election. He could follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Clinton and go from hero to goat back to hero in the course of a turbulent first term. Or he could follow in the footsteps of Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. and fizzle out.

I imagine events will ultimately determine that as much or more than he personally will. But I'd hardly be calling him a "sure bet for re-election" in the current environment.

That said, one bet I would be willing to take is that the Republican nominee in 2012 is somebody other than those getting most attention right now (Palin and Romney, mainly).

I'd be keeping an eye on people like Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Bob Corker, or Bobby Jindal.

[snesich]

03:07 PM on 02/12/2010

LOL. Those guys you mentioned are even more pathetic than Palin and Romney. Two are old southern guys with ultra-conservative, out of the mainstream politics. Another reminds people of the messenger boy on 30 Rock and was laughed at when he gave the "Republican Response" last year. And the other two are midwestern duds, one of whom has only "distinguished" himself as a good poker player when he was in college.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. And until you do, the odds are with Obama no matter what shape the country is in by the fall of 2012. But, very likely, it will be in much better shape than it was in the fall of 2008.

Given ALL of the current GOP contenders, Barack Obama is indeed a sure bet for re-election, especially since economic conditions will undoubtedly be better than they were four years earlier.

[graceland9]

12:38 PM on 02/12/2010

Or, if the ENTIRE GOP party runs against O, then they might have a chance.

[graceland9]

12:37 PM on 02/12/2010

So, if a GOP cyborg runs against O, then there might be a close race.

[DemCentrist]

11:10 AM on 02/12/2010

But isn't it scary that Obama vs and EMPTY chair is TIED?

What does that say about how the people of this nation view Obama?

[Lilly-G]

11:11 AM on 02/12/2010

doesn't mean a thing

[graceland9]

12:39 PM on 02/12/2010

It's scarier that they have an empty chair - better get cra.ckin'!

[tomterif]

12:05 AM on 02/15/2010

Not at all, Graceland... Nothing at all "desperate" for the GOP to fret about.

These are definitely amazing and unusual times, and someone could pop up "just like that !", out of virtually nowhere, and sweep away the entire thing, ESPECIALLY if Obama's situation gets pretty much toasted, by some sort of MAJOR economic crash, [Yeah, a good deal worse than what we have now] that's there's a lot of interesting prediction on for some time in 2011 [after some kind of mild upswing, before the end of this year.].

There's such a thing as circumstances making a candidate essentially unelectable [Am talking about Obama, here.].

And who knew dog-poo, nationally, about Obama, in 2006 ?, except for his good 2004 Kerry speech.

And things are moving even FASTER now !

Keep an eye on Marco Rubio in Fla. -- He's magnificent !, and will be [just barely : )] old enough to run for POTUS in 2012.

[Robert Stack]

10:38 AM on 02/12/2010

Those "If the election were held today" polls are fun, but they honestly don't mean much unless there's an actual election somewhere on the horizon. Even then they can be wildly inaccurate. Consider that similar polls conducted less than a year before the 2008 election predicted a McCain landslide, with the Arizona senator winning every state but Illinois. I also seem to remember a poll taken after the Democratic Convention in 1988 had candidate Michael Dukakis winning handily, not only in a match-up with George Bush, but also in a hypothetical match-up with sitting president Ronald Reagan. We all know what happened in the actual election, a mere 3 months later.

Obama has his work cut out for him to be sure, but one of his greatest weapons is the fact that his opponents continue to underestimate him. Barring another financial collapse, (or some amazing Republican candidate that we obviously haven't seen at this point), I think he has his reelection in the bag.

[Sam 32]

12:30 PM on 02/12/2010

What poll was that?

McCain was considered DEAD politically because of his amnesty bill...

[rasthedestroyer]

10:22 AM on 02/12/2010

if this wasn't so stupid.. i would be offended... musta really been a slow wk in politricks..
a generic candidate... is that all u got? this need to be unhappy about every lil' thing the
POTUS does or say's is insane... so easily we get distracted... i'm a lil disappointed with
Huffpo... it seems like there jus adding fuel to the fire.. it's staring to look alot like the MSM to me... it's 2010... why are we so concern'd about some GENERIC POLL for 2012... it's not Obama who's change'd.... it's us who haven't..

[hatrickpenry]

10:08 AM on 02/12/2010

In reality, this is kinda like discussing what you would do with your lottery winnings.
He wont even be a candidate for 2012 because he would NEVER pass the scrutiny of a PROPER vetting process to be re-nominated. Nancy dropped the ball on that last time and it will come back to haunt her.

[Malarcus]

12:31 PM on 02/12/2010

Did you just say the sitting President of the United States will not be the Democratic nominee in 2012 because he will not survive some mysterious vetting process that you believe incumbents are subjected to?

[graceland9]

12:40 PM on 02/12/2010

My reaction exactly - along with the bruise on my chin as it hit the floor

[hatrickpenry]

01:20 PM on 02/12/2010

Sorry I gave you both a wedgie. NOT.
A nomination form must still accompany a re-nomination. People are elected for 'terms', not a lifetime free pass on vetting.
Last time Nancy signed two separate DNC nomination forms, notarized on the same day. Both were identical with one small difference. The one filed and distributed to all 50 (not 57) states, slyly omitted the sentence stating that he was legally eligible to hold the office of POTUS under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

The DNC acknowledged that both forms exist, however declined to comment further.

See them both at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109363

[Malarcus]

01:45 PM on 02/12/2010

Ayup, good luck with that.

One piece of helpful advice, knowing words and understanding words can often be mutually exclusive.

[taddles]

01:56 PM on 02/12/2010

Please, "someone at Canada free press said?!?" grow up. This is the kid of childish foolishness that needs to be removed from any self respecting site. flagged for being a moran.