I figure PPP's public polls skew 5-7 points toward the Dems (they may do more accurate private polls for their Dem clients, but those are not made public.)

In other words, Obama would likely lose to Romney and Perry.

Pay attention to Gallup and Rasmussen, you can ignore just about every other pollster.

Agreed--this poll should not be any consolation to Obama's reelection campaign.

I am afraid you might have to stand in line behind a number of others looking to do the same thing.

Compare those numbers to various GOP candidates who might face Jimmy Carter in 1980. I was there - and John Connally was the guy the GOP establishment was desperately pushing because of the shellacking we were going to take if we nominated Ronald Reagan. I am ashamed to say that, a 20-something Congressional Aide at the time, I was desperately trying to show how smart I was to the establishment. Thanks be to God I got over it by June of 1980 - and since then have considered it the GOP establishment's duty to show me they have a lick of sense.

Now I may remember wrong, but it seems to me in matchups with Carter at about this time of year in 1979, Connally was about where Romney is; George H.W. Bush was about where Perry is and Ronald Reagan occupied the territory currently held by Cain and Palin.

History does not repeat itself, but a poll is a snapshot in time. The candidate who has the best capacity to successfully frame the debate and focus what voters feel will be the strongest general election candidate. That said, these numbers give some clues. Romney has been running for about six years straight. Not much upside from where he is at. Perry just got in and got the usual savaging from the media. Good floor after getting mauled - he has real upside. Bachman, she connects with people well, but makes the sort of gaffes that even conservatives wince at. Like Palin in '08, she probably needs more seasoning, but she's definitely got game. Cain flared after the first debate and then muffed some pretty basic foreign policy questions. A candidate for Sec. of Commerce, but his stock is going down. Palin has been busy being savaged constantly by the establishment media for five years and still has a strong floor. From death panels to noting the initials in Obama's Winning the Future, Palin has a knack for capturing exactly what multitudes feel but can't quite express. She has become a great communicator - and when the general narrative includes both the savaging she gets with her take every day, huge upside.

Conclusion, The P's hold the keys right now. Palin and Perry show the most potential for growth from this poll.

I respect your take, RWC, but that was a key part of my point. In 1979, it was the argument often used (sometimes by me) against Reagan. He was a household Republican name for 16 years, had been a well-known actor for much longer than that - and while his his support was hard support, it just wasn't enought according to the polls and we would get clobbered. The thing is, before Jan. of 1980, most of what people had heard politically about Reagan were brief soundbites the MSM used to try to trash him and what they regularly and contemptuously said about him. Come Jan of '80, people started listening to what HE had to say about the issues - and found he was right on. His situation then was nearly identical to Palin's today. I doubt that Palin has his chops, but by gum, she is like a Timex: she has taken a licking and still keeps on ticking (an 80's reference). Because of that, she has a powerful potential upside. If she gets in, I think it becomes a race between Perry and her (and I will be grateful to have either).

Katrina, isn't the news not that there's "no shake-up" but that (1) Romney is even (or winning, as other polls show), and (2) Romney is the strongest Republicans?

Too many of Katrina's articles have an inexplicable and creepy (NYT-esque, following the MSM tradition of subtle putdowns to give the audience "the right idea") anti-Romney bias. Personally, the guy's fiscal policies beat Perry's (balanced budget in MA vs. debt in TX) as does his stance on illegal immigration (no amnesty vs. amnesty + open borders + "fundamental transformation" of the US into Mexico), the key question to the country's future.

As for the "social questions," Romney's an anti-abortion Christian as much as Perry -- though of course you can't wear it on your sleeve and be elected to office in MA, as you can (and do) in TX.

Anyway, in the absence of Christie/Ryan from this race, I'm a Romney. And the fact that even Dem polling groups are putting these numbers out means that there may actually be some "hope" for "change"...

J Ryan,

So, any Republican candidate that isn't named "Romney" is a dimbulb? And any voter who favors a candidate not named "Romney" has no credibility? Pretty ridiculous posit.

Get real, son. The only 'so called Republicans' who would want to lose this election are Democrats.

If someone doesn't support Romney, it's because he/she thinks one of the other candidates has a better chance to win.

J Ryan,

So, any Republican candidate that isn't named "Romney" is a dimbulb? And any voter who favors a candidate not named "Romney" has no credibility? Pretty ridiculous posit.

Get real, son. The only 'so called Republicans' who would want to lose this election are Democrats.

If someone doesn't support Romney, it's because he/she thinks one of the other candidates has a better chance to win.

Ah! But you're forgetting that only Democrat pollsters can also poll felons (both active and inactive), the dead and certain cartoon characters. That explains the results. And, of course, with Barry running again, we wouldn't want to depress any of the votes of the least members of our community, especially the Dear Departed.
Would we?