What does "None of the above" poll?

I agree with the none of the above:

Palin can't win. She's nice and I don't disagree with her on any major issues, but she isn't articulate and is too folksy. You can be folksy if you have serious experience, like Reagan, but not if your experience is in question.

Gingrich cheated on his wife plus promoted man-made global warming with Nancy Pelosi. He's a non-starter. If he can keep a promise to his wife before God, what makes us think he'll keep a promise to a voter?

Huckabee is a lightweight. It would be like running Dole again.

Romney would be the best if it wasn't for Romneycare, which is eerily similar to Obamacare, and is failing. He can say it was good in theory and has failed in implementation, but what big government program does not follow that same pattern?

Guess I'm just not a "conservative". The above named, do nothing for my "heart" and certainly nothing which would make me reach for my wallet.

Type the names Thune, Christie and Jindal and you would have the attention of my "heart" and wallet.

The Romney results? Why would that be a surprise, given that he's not a conservative? (Well, except on days when the wind is blowing in that direction.)

What I cannot for the life of me understand is Huckabee's image as "conservative"...on social issues, sure. Got that. But on everything else - especially fiscal stuff - he's a "compassionate conservative" money spender who would make George W Bush look like a rank amateur at spending other people's money if he got elected. Yes, I'm sure all the spending would be for "a good cause" but it'd still be other people's money that they ought to spend themselves. I hope his continued standing in Republican polls is due to name recognition (and what essentially amounts to free campaign infomercials that Fox News actually pays him to run for himself). Honestly, I hope all 4 top spots are due to "name recognition" and to it still being way too early for this sort of polling.

I would love to have a Huckabee supporter explain to me how he's "conservative" on anything but social issue stuff. Seriously. I just flat don't see it.

"What I cannot for the life of me understand is Huckabee's image as "conservative"...on social issues, sure. Got that. But on everything else - especially fiscal stuff - he's a "compassionate conservative" money spender who would make George W Bush look like a rank amateur at spending other people's money if he got elected."

My thoughts, exactly. Add the pious smarminess that he exudes, and he's a non-starter in my book. I just can't figure out the attraction.

Historical data suggests that Palin would be better positioned for winning the POTUS election if she were polling less favorably at this point in the cycle.

Cue the lamestream media - time to hype her up so she has further to fall.

Huckabee has a loyal following among a small number of social conservative religious right voters. They will stay with him to the end. If there is no one else who appeals to hard line social conservatives in a primary with multiple candidates, Hucakbee wins.

If you think Huckabee is a smarmy big government liberal in GOP clothing, using the Bible as a shield, you aren't alone. But if all of us are split up, he is our nominee.

So we need to do one of two things:

1) Support Sarah Palin, because she is the only person in the top-shelf candidates who pulls a chunk of the values voters away from Huckster, or,

2) Forget about all the fiscal conservatives save one - any one - and unite around that person NOW, when we can clear the field. Holding out for people like Chris Christie who says repeatedly HE IS NOT RUNNING only dilutes support for people who might actually run and win.

Personally, I am open to either.

If any of the four are nominated, I'm forever done with the Republican party (I've already changed my registration but they continue to receive my money and my votes). I was a fan of Palin's before McCain even chose her as his running mate but she simply isn't qualified to be President, in my opinion. Huckabee isn't that conservative and I question his ethics also. Gingrich is ego personified and lacks character. Romney can't adequately run against Obama-care and has changed his position on life too often to be credible. Pawlenty is a global warming guy, unfortunately. I love Christie but wonder if he's conservative enough on all issues (but I'd take him just to see the debates). His emphasis on spending, education and unions would be fantastic. Thune is too political (ethanol?!?). I like Jindal but worry he isn't electable based on his ethnicity, his physical stature and his past musings on matters of faith. DeMint is my hero but likely not electable. Of the aforementioned, only Christie is both worth electing and electable (love him as the VP). That leaves three guys, only one of whom is obviously running. First, Paul Ryan. A great and very smart guy, likely not running and probably too young (though head and shoulders above Obama and a future star). Second, Mitch Daniels. A great candidate (despite his lack of physical presence). People have misunderstood his recent comments on social issues and VAT, I think. He's honest, competent and absolutely would get the debt and deficit under control. Last, also from Indiana, Mike Pence. He appears to have the entire package. He's smart, articulate, principled, good looking and experienced. Pence or Daniels with either Ryan or Christie as a running mate. Look, you already have the South locked up. Focus on the Midwest and pick off a state or two in the Northeast and you are good to go. These four guys energize the base and represent articulate electable candidates with no serious baggage. Almost guaranteed to win, in my opinion.

Can imagine anyone preferring sHuckabee. However, I do believe that Palin could take this phony down in no time in a fair debate.