[WyvernAK]

Yes, I just did and I feel I must point out that any poll that puts Gingrich at 15% and second in the pack must have some thing wrong with it. Maybe they were only polling people who were in a coma from 1994 till now and the first thing they read was a good piece on Sarah Palin. Really, who in their right mind thinks Newt should be anywhere near our top pick for 2012?

Now don't get me wrong, I have liked and respected Sarah Palin since she gave the going away speech to my Brigade in Fort Wainwright AK back in late 2008 “Same Brigade as her son” and think she is by far the best person to put forward for 2012, to hell with the MSM, but don't get your hopes up on just one poll. Especially one with Newt in second place :)

[ansel12]

Do us all a favor and quit wasting our time with your silly, lectures about polls.

[altair]

Yes, I just did and I feel I must point out that any poll that puts Gingrich at 15% and second in the pack must have some thing wrong with it.

No. It's also up to you to interpret what the results mean. It's been common wisdom that any poll this far in advance of an election (2+ years) is little more than a name recognition contest.

What's wrong with it, is that you are attempting to apply any special meaning to it. Most people know Newt Gingrich and memories of 1995-1996 have started to fade.

Think of Mr. Newt as the Republican lite version of Teddy Kennedy. After his swimming expedition, Kennedy was never electable as President. Still, the name held magic for people and in pre-primary seasons, he always polled very high. In 1980, against a failed Presidency, and with high preseason poll numbers in hand, he threw his hat into the ring and failed.

Mr. Newt has more name recognition than others on the list. Nothing more.