Huckabee, Trump Tied For Lead In Gallup Poll
Taking into account all the usual caveats about early polling, we’ve got yet another poll showing Donald Trump leading even presumed heir apparent Mitt Romney in a GOP race:
PRINCETON, NJ — Donald Trump debuts in a first-place tie in Gallup’s latest update of Republicans’ preferences for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination among potential contenders. Trump ties Mike Huckabee at 16%, with Mitt Romney close behind at 13%. Sarah Palin is the only other potential Republican candidate to earn double-digit support.
The April 15-20 Gallup poll finds Trump leading the field among moderate and liberal Republicans, with 21% supporting him. Huckabee is the leader among conservative Republicans. Huckabee’s support and Trump’s support differ between ideological groups, while Romney and Palin get similar support from both ideological wings of the party.
Among the lower-ranked candidates, Newt Gingrich’s support and Michele Bachmann’s support tilt decidedly conservative. Trump is the only potential candidate who shows notably stronger appeal to liberals and moderates than to conservatives within the GOP.
To stay competitive, Trump would need to maintain a decent level of support among conservatives, since they outnumber moderates and liberals by about 2 to 1 among rank-and-file Republicans and Republican leaners. For the same reason, Huckabee’s smaller support among moderates and liberals is less of an issue if he maintains his top standing among conservatives.
Here’s the chart:
Again, I’m not sure what all this means other than to say that if Donald Trump really is thinking about running for President, I don’t see why he wouldn’t do so given his recent poll performance.
Other 2%, that must be my candidate, Herman Cain
Proud to see that the two potential candidates I like best are slugging it out for bottom place.
So, using the “conservative” numbers, there are 5 candidates who might plausibly perform the duties of President of the United States, (Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Barbour and Huntsman) and they have a total between them of 24%.
There are four certified idiots (Huckabee, Palin, Bachman and Santorum) with a total of 37%
Then there are the grating gasbags on an ego trip, (Trump and Gingrich) at a total of 21%.
And finally, there’s Ron Paul and his lonely crusade to turn the clock back to the 19th century.
At this same point 4 years ago the Democratic field was Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Richardson and Dodd.
One certified douchebag (Edwards,) one wingnut (Kucinich) and 5 viable candidates. (At least as viable as any of the current GOP crowd.)
The top two — Obama and Clinton — had 70% of the polls. In the current GOP poll the total support for all the viable candidates is a third of that.
The GOP loves them some crazy.
I don’t think Edwards reached certified douchebag status until at least October 2007, so he was still viable at this time in the 2008 cycle.
This brings us to the profound question that has engaged philosophers going back to Aristotle: is it the act of douchebaggery, or the discovery of said douchebaggery, that allows us to apply the douchebag label?
I go with the theory that a leopard can’t change their spots.
He obviously already was, but when surveying the field of Democratic presidential candidates in April 2007, that wasn’t know. My point here is that the current view of the 2012 republican field and the view of them in 2015 will most likely differ a lot.
I agree, and I happily await who or whom of the republican candidates for 2012 will end up showing their spots. Or maybe they are all already so low in the public view that it won’t matter?