February 11th, 2010
11:17 AM ET
13 years ago

Poll: No favorites in 2012 GOP Battle

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/11/art.romney.file.gi.jpg caption="A Gallup poll released Thursday indicates that 14 percent of Republican voters and Republican-leaning independents say they would like to see Mitt Romney as their party's nominee in 2012."]Washington (CNN) - It's still early in the pre-season in the next battle for the White House, and a new poll indicates that the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination is wide open.

A Gallup poll released Thursday indicates that 14 percent of Republican voters and Republican-leaning independents say they would like to see former Massachusetts Gov. and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney as their party's nominee.

Eleven percent of those questioned said they'd like former Alaska Gov. and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as their party's candidate in 2012, with 7 percent backing Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, 4 percent supporting the newest member of the Senate, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and 3 percent pulling for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and for former Arkansas Gov. and 2008 Republican White House hopeful Mike Huckabee. Everyone else registered at 2 percent or less.

The survey, without prompting any names, asked Republicans and Republican leaning-independents whom they would most like to see as the party's 2012 presidential candidate.

In a hypothetical 2012 general election match-up, the poll indicates that 44 percent of the public say they would likely support President Barack Obama if he decides to run for re-election, with 42 percent backing the Republican candidate and 14 percent undecided or supporting another candidate.

According to the survey, Democrats would overwhelmingly back Obama and Republicans overwhelming support the GOP candidate.

Thirty-one percent of independents questioned say they would support Obama, with 45 percent backing the Republican candidate and 1 in 4 backing another candidate or undecided.

The survey's release comes one week before some possible 2012 GOP presidential contenders will speak at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

The Gallup poll was conducted February 1-3, with 1,025 adults questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for the overall sample and plus or minus 5 percentage points for the Republican only questions.

–CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @psteinhausercnn

Filed under: 2012 • Polls • President Obama
soundoff (111 Responses)
  1. a little sad

    Sue February 11th, 2010 12:47 pm ET

    Mitt Romney in 2012-–with Scott Brown as his VP running mate.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an issue that you couldn't have a presdient and vice president ticket from the same state, when GWB and Cheney were running?

    February 11, 2010 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  2. Al-NY,NY

    Mutt would never pass the "Purity test" that is demanded by "real republicans" so he won't even get the nomination. He also belongs to a cult, didnt they know that? Please nominate the Wasilla village idiot so she can be humiliated in the general election, if she doesn't quit hafl-way thru

    February 11, 2010 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  3. geecee

    Obama is trying his best to overcome the awful mess he was left with. These job losses were coming down the pike for quite a while before Obama took office. Things need to bottom out before they can turn around again – housing and all the rest of the mess. Jobs take a long time to turnaround. Obama has only been President for one year. Give him a chance. You gave Bush 8 years and he left one heck of a mess. If I fault Obama for anything, it's for trying to be a nice guy. You can't be a nice guy with Republicans. They don't respect you or listen to you. Just get down and dirty. They like that better.

    However, if the Republicans want a winning ticket though, it would be Palin/Tancredo for sure!! They are a dynamic duo who make a great team. She's crazy and he's nuts. They'll put this country back on track, right Teabaggers??

    February 11, 2010 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  4. Socialism...keeping police/fire stations, roads, justice system and the military out of the hands of Capitalists

    This is for all you Palin supporters out there. I believe Palin would be a terrible President. However, I know for an absolute FACT that SHE IS 100% QUALIFIED.

    Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    These are the only qualifications needed to be President and Sarah Palin fits these to a T. Despite her being 100% qualified I still think she would be a terrible President.

    February 11, 2010 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  5. NancyLV

    reading some of these post the remarks say that the right wing nuts want the country to go back to what it was, well yes I guess we do but I am not a right wing nut I am neither I am independent and those independents that voted for Obama and actually put him in office (not me) are the ones that are more than likely going to vote him back out so it is not just the right wing nuts, we independents at least the majority are sorry that they put this very left Obama in office and the independents are the ones that are going to vote right this next time, the change he said was not the change that this party thought he was talking about.

    February 11, 2010 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  6. Palin is like France: both hink they are so terrific

    AND the truth about them is that neither of the 2 is even fairly good for anyone. Their problem is that too many people call them terrific, while they are not. Palin lost in 2008 to a Black man with the name Hussain and that – certainly in that world she lives in – is more than enough, for her own supporters to be rallying for someone else next time. France, just like Palestine, isn't a terrific land to live in: there are terrific places to live in in France – throughout France – but just the happy few lives in terrific places as France isn't a terrific place to live in for even a Middle Class French (average family of 4). It is more often – too often – exactly the contrary for the vast majority of the (French) people! Hala Gorani – as she is right now in Paris – should hire a car, and drive hundreds of kilometers OUTSIDE Paris to find out for herself the terrible sides of a France you don't see from the Eifel Tower!! But I can tell you why such country like France isn't as terrific, as Hala says: its infrastructure is A MESS! The French live almost only in Big Cities, what means outside those Big Cities almost nobody lives: the country side is abandoned – as people with (a bit of) a normal life can't live in villages were there's nothing. The big cities are too far away to visit by car to buy groceries; the villages with some shops to buy things at expensive prices aren't just around the corner: you have to drive 50, 75 or 100 km, to find that what you want to buy (bread, wine, water, etc) in a couple of so small shops, with little 'choice'! To go to closer big(ger) cities – all hundreds of km away – you first have to drive 50, 75 or 10 km BEFORE you drive your car via a runway TO GET ON a highway to a big(ger) city hundred km (or even further) away. That not only costs you too much time, what most (French) people don't have, as it also costs you too much Euros for just (buying) some groceries. That's why nobody wants to live in an abandoned village, and why all people want to live in the bigger cities. They don't have a choice: that makes/keeps the prices (of everything) in the big(ger) French Cities, not just Paris, THAT HIGH that (average) French people CAN'T pay those prices! We know what we talk about!!

    February 11, 2010 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  7. Nostradamus

    Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, will be the Republican nominee.

    February 11, 2010 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  8. Brian from washington

    Let's see - Mitt Romney is a Mormom and Sarah Palin is a Moron. For most Republicans, that's a match.

    February 11, 2010 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  9. Dean

    To the GOP. If your candidate can't winn one year, don't nominate him again. Remember Adlai Stevenson and other losers who were defeated before they were ever nominated.

    February 11, 2010 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |
  10. Marie MD

    I don't see what the problem is. All they have to do is go to the internet and anyone who looks half way decent is then chosen to be the candidates. It worked so well for mccain in 2008 why not in 2012?
    No vetting needed, of course.

    February 11, 2010 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  11. MN voter

    Could someone send this to Tim Pawlenty? Maybe T-Paw will stop running around carrying water fro the GOP and get back to MN business.

    February 11, 2010 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  12. Debby

    I love Romney sorry when he didn't get the nomination as he is an economic Wizard.

    February 11, 2010 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  13. Mitt surely is a HOT PIECE of HORNY HORMON

    as he should be DRIVING his while Scott is RUNNING on his in 2012

    February 11, 2010 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  14. Maggie in Canada

    To: RNC=DNC Obviously you and many Americans listen only to what you want to and many times tune out important statements. Obama did not, at any time, promise immediate change. What he did do was give immediate hope and stated on many occasions that change would not happen overnight and it may even take all of his first term and he knew what he was talking about. Stop listening to Fox. Don't you find that listening to that awful rhetoric makes you angry, well, as your previous 'great leader' said "Mission Accomplished". Fox wants to win in their attempts to make America fail because if President Obama fails so do you. Think about it, if you can think for yourself.

    February 11, 2010 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  15. Carl

    Why do people feel that Scott Brown is the great white hope? Mitt is old news and Scott Brown has yet to prove him self. He needs to serve the people of Mich rather than using them as a platform for political ambition.

    February 11, 2010 02:03 pm at 2:03 pm |
  16. Voice of Reason

    Note that if you add up the numbers listed, it comes to less than 45%. That means that more than half of the Republicans dont want ANY of these 'front-runners' in office. Seems to me that the party is fracturing. The whole never-ending ignorance (and usually misguided) anger that accompanies the Tea-partiers and the Tenthers and the rest of the conspiracy-theorists is tearing the republican party apart.

    Does anyone remember Ross Perot? If the repbulicans dont get their act together, then 1) they dont stand a chance in the next election cycle, and 2) the protesting and ignorance will continue to dupe people left and right.

    February 11, 2010 02:05 pm at 2:05 pm |
  17. lillacluvr

    Mitt Romney and Scott Brown, now that would be good for debate. How are the Republicans going to refute the fact that both of these men voted for a statewide mandate for people to buy health insurance? Scott Brown is pro-choice -there's another 'oops' moment for the GOP. Yes, Romney and Brown would be a delight to see in the debate.

    February 11, 2010 02:12 pm at 2:12 pm |
  18. A True Centrist

    " I cannot believe the right wingnuts would support the guy who brought MA a form of government healthcare."

    You need to do a little research before you make sweeping statements like this. The program he implemented here in MA was self-sustaining meaning it could not fall into debt or borrow from other areas of the government. Of course, to do this, we have the second highest premiums in the country but it is not burdening the state like social security and medicare are doing for the country.

    By the way, Romney had a balanced budget four years in a row while governor of MA. He did cut some social programs to do so, but he made the tough decisions and kept us in a balanced budget his entire time in office. Compare that to our new governor, Cadillac Deval Patrick, who has had a deficit each year in office, including over a $1 billion in 2009. Romney is a flip-flopper on social issues but you can't question the man's abilities as a business man. And as for the mormon talk, he is a strong family man who has supported his wife through MS and cancer.

    February 11, 2010 02:13 pm at 2:13 pm |
  19. Steve (the real one)

    Anonymous February 11th, 2010 12:33 pm ET

    What is the big deal? None of them are qualified. They are not intelligent, they are not Christian, and they are not patriotic.
    Kinda harsh! Is a guy who sat in the Senate for less than a year qualified? From an economic stand point I like Romney! He ran a business, saved an Olympics, has executive experience as a governor (he actually had to work a state budget). Senators don't do that! Congressmen don't do that!
    After a statement like that, I can clearly see why you are anonymous!

    February 11, 2010 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  20. Jacob

    I say put old man McCain back up, and put Palin up as the third party Tea Baggin candidate. we could use the comedy rolling into Obama's second term!

    February 11, 2010 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  21. Laverne

    Don't get too happy GOPers, you act as if President Obama is at the end of term, ah he does have 3 more years in office and I know it may be a revelation to you, politics changes in this country daily and nothing is guaranteed, except Obama's sure win against all the folks named in this article!

    February 11, 2010 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  22. Steve (the real one)

    B February 11th, 2010 12:28 pm ET
    When you have nothing to work with, you start at the bottom.
    The party of – no, zero, nothing, zilch. They are the worst collection of hacks that the Republicans have had in recent history.
    1. Start at the bottom? Interestingly enough a lot of independents now feel that way about November 2008!

    2. Worst collection? Your a liberal, that is what you are supposed to say! It's in the playbook!

    February 11, 2010 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  23. rs

    It's kind of scarey that America's second largest political party is without a real or perceived leader. The danger here is that without a leader, a real wild-card figure (like Palin) could gain traction and influence the ultimate choice. This may be the result of the ongoing purge, but its safe to say that unless they get their act together, and pick a real adult- and someone not affiliated with the extreme wackos, they're gonna lose.

    February 11, 2010 02:27 pm at 2:27 pm |
  24. mrkusn

    The GOP better choose a hip centrist who will appeal to independants. There isn't anyone out there.

    Romney will win it though.

    February 11, 2010 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
  25. J.P.

    That's because we don't see ANY of them as being libertarian enough.

    Doesn't matter though, because after Obama has finished turning us into Cuba 2.0, the GOP could run a cardboard cutout against him and win by a landslide.

    As Reagan said, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

    Cut all programs not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
    Defend the shores.
    Build the roads.
    Deliver the mail.
    That's it.
    No wait... scratch that part about the mail. The government can't do that well either. Let FedEx do it.

    February 11, 2010 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5