Obama leads in Virginia
According to a new poll, President Obama currently leads Romney by 6, [Added: Huckabee by 8], Gingrich by 12, and Palin by 19 in Virginia.
-
Recent Comments
- David Campbell on How health reform controls health cost
- LittleDavid on How health reform controls health cost
- David Campbell on How health reform controls health cost
- LittleDavid on How health reform controls health cost
- LittleDavid on How health reform controls health cost
- David Campbell on How health reform controls health cost
- LittleDavid on How health reform controls health cost
- David Campbell on How health reform controls health cost
- LittleDavid on Coal plant is a health threat
-
Calendar
Blogroll
- Article XI: To Preserve and Protect
- Assembly Access
- Avenging Archangel
- Bacon's Rebellion
- Blue Virginia
- Blueweeds
- Decision Virginia
- Equality Loudoun
- Leesburg Tomorrow
- Left of the Hill
- Newport News Politics
- Not Larry Sabato
- NoVa Town Hall
- Ox Road South
- Pilot on Politics
- Renaissance Ruminations
- Shad Plank
- The Richmonder
- Virginia Beach Progressives
- Virginia Intelligent Transportation Systems
- Virginia Politics
- Vivian Paige
- Waldo Jaquith
Meta
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I had to go follow the links to get to the results for my favorite amongst all the Republican candidates.
Your piece and the first link failed to report on the results for my personal favorite amongst the Republican field, that being Governor Huckabee.
My guns are loaded against him, but he is the Republican I would prefer to lose to if defeat happens.
For the record, the Reverend/Governor Huckabee trails Obama by 8 points.
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:30 am
Huckabee the birther?
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:12 am
I said my guns were loaded.
I didn’t say I would prefer him over Obama. If a Republican running for President ended up in the office, who would you prefer it be if not Huckabee?
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:27 am
Please excuse the double post.
There has been heat recently about references to weapons in rhetoric. I do not even own a gun. I am not trying to threaten Governor Huckabee’s life. I am only using an inference or comparison. I refuse to bow and be politically correct. When I refer to my guns are loaded, I mean I have a number of things I can point to for why President Obama should be re-elected instead of voting for the Reverend for President.
But as far as Republicans go, I like Huckabee.
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Huckabee is on record several times saying the birther movement is a waste of time and he’s personally convinced that there’s nothing to the birth certificate issue. This particular statement about Kenya (note: not about the birth certificate) got a quick correction on Huckabee’s website.
You calling Mike Huckabee a birther devalues the insult and makes you look (even more) like a cheap political hack.
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
MALZBERG: “Don’t you think we deserve to know more about this man?”
HUCKABEE: “I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits, the bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”
MALZBERG: “Would you say to him, or at least ask him in a debate, why did you go to court and spend millions of dollars on lawyers to prevent from having to show your birth certificate. If you have one and it’s there, why not show it?”
HUCKABEE: “The only reason I’m not as confident that there’s something about the birth certificate, Steve, is because I know the Clintons [inaudible] and believe me, they have lots of investigators out on him, and I’m convinced if there was anything that they could have found on that, they would have found it, and I promise they would have used it.”
The correction (made by spokesman Hogan Gidley) was: “Governor Huckabee simply misspoke when he alluded to President Obama growing up in ‘Kenya.’ The Governor meant to say the President grew up in Indonesia. When the Governor mentioned he wanted to know more about the President, he wasn’t talking about the President’s place of birth – the Governor believes the President was born in Hawaii. The Governor would however like to know more about where President Obama’s liberal policies come from and what else the President plans to do to this country – as do most Americans.”
I wonder how many of those who heard him on the radio were aware of the correction?
Later still, Huckabee clarified:
FISCHER: Well Governor, what got lost in all the shuffle was the legitimate point that you were making which is that we may have a president who has some fundamentally anti-American ideas that may be rooted in a childhood where he had a father who was virulently anti-colonial, hated the British – might have something to do with the President returning the bust of Winston Churchill back to England. You know, I was struck by the fact that when he made his tour to Indonesia, he made a point of going to an Indonesian memorial that celebrated the victory of Indonesians over British troops – again, part of that anti-colonial thing. And so I’d like you to comment on that; you seem to think that there is some validity to the fact that there may be some fundamental anti-Americanism in this president.
HUCKABEE: Well, that’s exactly the point that I make in the book and I don’t know why these reporters – maybe they can’t read, I guess that’s part of it because it’s clearly spelled out and I’m quoting a British newspaper who really were expressing the outrage of the Brits over that bust being returned and the point was that they felt like that due to Obama’s father and grandfather it could be that his version and view of the Mau Mau Revolution was very different than most of the people who perhaps would grow up in the United States. And I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas.”
The one thing Huckabee does know, that Obama grew up in Kenya, wasn’t true. He confused Kenya with Indonesia, which has nothing to do with the Mau Mau Revolution. Obama was somehow influenced by a father he only met once as an adult and a grandfather that he never met (he was actually raised by his white mother and grandparents in Hawaii and Indonesia). According to Huckabee, the President of the United States is anti-American, and vaguely connected to “madrassas.”
Why is it that accurately quoting Republicans when they say ridiculous things is considered an unfair personal attack?
March 4th, 2011 at 5:21 am
According to a recent poll, a 51% majority of Republicans believe that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. (and therefore is not legitimately qualified to be President). Another 21% aren’t sure. Only 28% of Republicans know Obama was born in Hawaii.
Huckabee is smart enough to know that Obama was born in Hawaii, but he is also enough of a politician to know how to play to his lunatic base.
March 4th, 2011 at 5:28 am
LittleDavid: It would be an unusual bit of trivia if
RomneyHuckabee became our 2nd President from Hope, Arkansas. (Maybe I should start a rumor that he is Clinton’s illegitimate son. I could always walk it back later by claiming I “simply misspoke.”)Romney is probably the least objectionable of the major Republican presidential candidates, but I doubt the religious right will support a Morman and I doubt the Tea Party wing will support the father of health reform.
March 4th, 2011 at 8:36 am
“Why is it that accurately quoting Republicans when they say ridiculous things is considered an unfair attack?”
It’s not. But that’s not what you did. Huckabee mis-spoke and said that Obama grew up in Kenya, a demonstrably false statement. The folks conducting the interviews appeared to be aggressively leading Huckabee into the birther debate, but I haven’t seen anywhere that he bit. Your interpretation? “Huckabee the birther”.
I’ve quit being surprised in your ability to see only what you want to see.
In other news, Obama mis-spoke in 2008 and claimed that he had visited 57 states during the presidential campaign. Although his handlers quickly corrected the error, the crack staff here at vbdems is still researching possible ways to make Obama’s original statement true.
Also, in 2010, Obama made the mis-statement that Europe was a country. The next morning, vbdems started a world-wide e-mail campaign lobbying that Europe be demoted from “continent” to “country”.
Episodes like this just make you look plain foolish.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Open Minded: Please read the transcript of Huckabee’s statements that I have provided.
Huckabee referred to Kenya four times. He did not “simply misspeak” or make “a simple slip of the tongue” substitution of one word for another (as all public speakers, including Obama, occasionally do). Try replacing the word “Kenya” with “Indonesia” in Huckabee’s statements and see if that makes them honest and truthful. It doesn’t. Huckabee made numerous false and misleading statements, expounding on his theory that being raised by a Kenyan father and grandfather (which didn’t happen) influenced Obama’s supposedly anti-British (which has nothing to do with Indonesia) views. (Is Huckabee pro-colonialism?)
The bust of Churchill was on loan from Prime Minister Blair to President Bush. It was returned to them prior to Obama redecorating the Oval Office, just as every President does. (Obama was not obligated to keep a photo of the Bush twins on his desk either.) He replaced the Churchill bust with one of Abraham Lincoln (more evidence that Obama is anti-American?).
When Malzberg (who actually is a birther) specifically asked him about Obama’s birth certificate, Huckabee didn’t state the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. Instead, he dodged the question, saying that he’s “not as confident that there’s something about the birth certificate” but only because Hillary Clinton’s ruthless campaign staff would probably have turned something up.
In the very next interview, Huckabee doubled down by repeating his previous false statements about the Churchill bust, the Mau Mau Revolution (in Indonesia?), and even threw in a gratuitous reference to madrassas.
Obama, a Christian, attended the St. Francis of Assisi Catholic school and then public school in Indonesia from ages 6-10 (and also went to Boy Scout meetings). For most of his childhood, from birth to age 6 and from age 10 through high school, he lived in Hawaii, United States. (By the way, there are 48 Rotary Club chapters in the state of Hawaii.)
Huckabee may not be a birther, but he is perfectly willing to pander to them with false statements and innuendo. When a majority of Republican voters believe something that is blatently false, it isn’t good politics for a Republican presidential candidate to be truthful.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
David C,
The second guy from Hope, Arkansas would be Huckabee, not Romney. You are getting your Republicans confused.
If you think Romney is preferable, go look at the quicksand that is his positions on issues he has had through various elections. I am one willing to give a politician latitude to change his mind on issues, but Romney seems to be willing to say whatever is necessary to get elected much more then most. Perhaps you are attracted to the old Romney that got elected Governor in Massachusetts. You need to pay more attention to the Romney who is seeking the Republican Presidential nomination.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
LittleDavid: Of course you are right. In the first paragraph, I meant to type Huckabee, responding to your previous comment. That is an example of the sort of silly mistakes that everybody makes on occasion. I have corrected it in my previous comment.
Huckabee doesn’t even believe in evolution.
Regardless of his position changes, I figure that Romney would actually govern as President more as he did as Governor.
Any moderate Republican candidate will not survive the Republican primary process. There is no chance that I’ll vote for any of them anyway, so it doesn’t really matter which one I prefer.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
It matters if you are trying to size up someone who is going to be willing to compromise in leadership instead of throwing everything you stand for out the window in order to get elected.
Huckabee is the former and Romney is the latter.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Huckabee may be unwilling to compromise on establishing America as a Christian nation.
Romney demonstrated the ability to govern in a bipartisan manner.
Anyway, I’m sure you will not be surprised that I will vote to reelect President Obama regardless of who the Republicans nominate.
March 4th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Double Post,
When it comes to evolution, I am willing to hope some like me can convince Huckabee to change his mind. Proof is that while we might not have a perfect understanding of evolution, God provided all the evidence that something like evolution is true. Perhaps evolution is wrong, but if God created the world, then God created all the evidence that leads me to believe in evolution. If evolution never happened, for some reason God created all the evidence that leads me to believe in it. If I am going to be fooled by someone, I am going allow God to be the one to do it. I am going to trust in God.
March 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
That wasn’t a double post after all, grin.
Huckabee demonstrated an ability to govern in a bipartisan manner in Arkansas as opposed to Romney in Massachusetts.
Huckabee does not have to stray too far to get elected, and Romney needs to completely abandon his history. Romney’s history is saying anything necessary to get elected.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:04 am
I’m hoping Palin will be the nominee. She may not win a single state.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:31 am
David C,
I’m surprised you did not speak up for Jon Huntsman, although he probably has little chance of winning the nomination.
He backs civil unions for gays and cap-and-trade. He also is serving the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China, although he has announced his resignation, effective April 30th.
He has not announced his intention to run, but the timing of his resignation is fueling speculation.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
I was aware of Huntsman, but do not consider him a major candidate. Anyone who is reasonable “has little chance of winning the nomination.”
March 6th, 2011 at 7:05 am
The Republican field is so loose I would advise you to watch out for the dark horse. Republicans are hoping that some candidate can come out of nowhere and unite them.
Our now President Obama was not the favorite at the beginnings of the primary season. He was only successful after a long, hard campaign.
March 7th, 2011 at 5:58 am
Is it even possible for a credible Republican candidate to emerge from Republican primaries that will be dominated by Tea Party activists?
Conservative columnist George Will cited Huckabee’s and Gingrich’s recent fact-free attacks on Obama, concluding that the Republican nomination process is “cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.”
(I guess George Will doesn’t qualify as a “cheap political hack” because he got paid a lot of money for the same opinion I gave away for free.)
March 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
I am not so sure the Tea Party will “dominate”. Many Republicans (evidently including George Will) are becoming willing to speak out against their influence.
How was it that maverick McCain won the Republican nomination last time? If the hard right really is that powerful in the Republican Party, I do not think that would have happened. I do not think the American electorate, or even the membership of the Republican Party, has really changed that much in only a couple years.
It is my opinion that had John McCain not made that disastrous decision to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate, the election might have had an entirely different outcome. Had he choose someone more reasonable (like – I’ll throw out a name – Lindsey Graham) there might have been a different result.
But then we would get into the argument about how could he (McCain) have won if the conservative base of the Republican Party was not energized? My estimation is that the conservative base would have still shown up to vote against Obama, and then McCain would not have lost as many moderate votes. I’ll use myself as an example, back then I was an independent and I would have voted for a McCain/Graham ticket over Obama/Biden. I was not offered that choice so I ended up voting for Obama.
I wish to identify that from the start, as a moderate independent, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. The biggest reason I became a Democrat was because of the rise of Tea Party influence in the Republican Party.
March 7th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Unlike his previous presidential campaign as a moderate in 2000, McCain ran toward the right in 2008. The whole reason McCain thought it was necessary to choose Palin as his running mate was to try to shore up support from the Tea Party wing that distrusted him because of his previous mavericky positions. Had he chosen someone more reasonable, they may have stayed at home on election day.
March 7th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Yeah, we’re drifting into the realm of “wouldah, shoudlah, couldah”.
I’d love to see the Republicans nominate somebody like the maverick McCain this time around. Although watching how willing he was to swing so hard right to win re-election to his Senate seat, there isn’t much left to love about him anymore.
March 31st, 2011 at 10:04 am
UPDATE: According to Huckabee, all Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to Christian nationalist David Barton. He was probably just kidding. This is a serious presidential candidate?
May 16th, 2011 at 5:27 am
UPDATE: Huckabee is out.
May 16th, 2011 at 11:00 am
UPDATE: Trump is out too. They’re dropping like flies.
May 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 am
UPDATE: Mitch Daniels is out. Tim Pawlenty is in.
May 24th, 2011 at 9:53 am
UPDATE: In a Fox News poll, 57% of Americans believe that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012.
Online gambling site Intrade currently has Obama’s re-election chances at 62.2%.
Today (05/25/2011), Gallup has President Obama’s approval rating at 53%-41%.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:14 am
UPDATE: Michele Bachmann is in.
May 31st, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Buyer’s remorse” about unpopular new Republican Governors in the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan may boost President Obama’s re-election prospects.
Virginia Governor McDonnell has avoided that fate by allowing Attorney General Cuccinelli to carry the spear.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:40 am
UPDATE: President Obama currently leads all Republican presidential candidates in North Carolina too. North Carolina voters oppose the Republican proposal to gut Medicare by a 2:1 margin.
July 1st, 2011 at 5:39 am
UPDATE: In a new poll, the race is essentially tied in Virginia, with 43% in favor of re-electing President Obama and 41% in favor of whomever the Republicans nominate. This is somewhat misleading. A generic Republican candidate tends to do better than any of the specific candidates that are currently in the race. If there is a lack of Republican enthusiasm for their actual nominee, it could translate into a bigger margin for Obama (and, perhaps, Kaine).
December 17th, 2011 at 7:36 am
UPDATE: President Obama is still leading all Republican presidential candidates in Virginia.
February 6th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
UPDATE: Nationally, Obama now leads Romney among registered voters 51%-45%.
March 20th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Obama is widening his lead in Virginia.