That's where Lou Dobbs is polling right now in the 2012 presidential race, according to a Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlian Rosner survey taken November 12-16 (via David Frum, via Mickey Kaus).
In a prospective race between Dobbs, President Obama, Mitt Romney, and Ralph Nader, the polling results are: Obama 45%, Romney 38%, Dobbs 6%, and Nader 4%, among "likely voters."
(Obama's total, it should be noted, shoots up to 58% when among "drop-off
voters"--people who don't qualify as "likely voters" but who voted in
2008, are included.)*
Not bad for Dobbs, though it might be an ideal scenario for him with
Romney as the GOP's nominee: Romney doesn't have much populist appeal
to eat into Dobbs' prospective support base; Sarah Palin and Mike
Huckabee, on the other hand, do.
*I originally misinterpreted this figure as the total percent of "likely" voters and "drop-off" voters who say they'd vote for Obama. It's not: Obama's polls at 58 percent among "drop-off" voters only. The total figures--including both likely and drop-off voters--are: Obama 47%, Romney 37%, Dobbs 5%, and Nader 4%.
I'd think the bigger news is that this poll shows conservatives as the dominant group at 45% vs liberals at 19%, almost 2.5:1.
I thought conservatism was dead. Isn't that what Sam Tanenhaus told us? The NYT? The media? If 45% is dead, I don't want to see what alive is.
I certainly don't know what will happen in 2012, but if conservatives make up anywhere close to 45% of the electorate, I know what will be happening on Jan 20, 2013. One Barack Obama will be moving back to Hyde Park.
Also, they have Obama's approval at 48-46 among LV. They don't do a party breakdown, but a 48 overall means he's likely in the low 40s among Independents. In a Carville poll, no less.
More interesting takeaways from the poll.
"Liberal" is to a good extent a dirty word, so if someone calls themselves that they're doing so despite the baggage it has and they probably are actually "liberals". At the same time, those who call themselves conservatives might mean that only in the fiscal sense, or only in the social sense. And, even with the first group, many or most of them would drop away if you threatened to take away their "goodies" such as SocSec. IOW, don't pretend this is the RandroidRevolution.
P.S. Here's what Lou Dobbs actually told Telemundo, and what he's said before. Compare that to what you've heard from others, such as the WSJ. How those who oppose amnesty should approach this is described at the link.
Regressives never were good at math and science were they Publius.
The "purity test" should complete the job of shrinking the the GOP down to it's 18% "base"
Six percent?
His family must be larger than I thought.
Conservatives are loud and angry and the press eats it up. But *real* people are angry to:
American Outrage
(satire)