That’s one of the most interesting new findings from a statewide survey conducted by 20/20 Insight, a political consulting firm that recently set up shop in Atlanta. The business was started by Jeff DiSantis, the former executive director of the Georgia Democratic Party who managed Thurbert Baker’s campaign for governor last year.

DiSantis said his new firm has already done some polling work in Iowa, Missouri and Nevada. They conducted an interactive voice response (IVR) poll of 910 registered Georgia voters (792 of them voted in November 2010 and 379 identified themselves as likely Republican primary voters) during the Jan. 24-28 period.

In hypothetical head-to-head matchups between Obama and the leading Republican contenders, Obama finished behind most of the GOP hopefuls: Mitt Romney leads 50-44 percent (when leaners are figured in), Mike Huckabee leads 50-45 percent, and Newt Gingrich leads 47-45 percent. In a head-to-head with Palin, however, Obama was ahead by 47-43 percent.

(Note also that Gingrich, who started his political career in Georgia, did not fare as well with poll respondents as Huckabee and Romney.)

The likely Republican primary voters were asked who their choice would be in next year’s presidential preference primary. The breakdown: Huckabee 19 percent, Gingrich 18 percent, Romney and radio host Herman Cain both at 14 percent, Palin 11 percent, Tim Pawlenty 3 percent, Haley Barbour 2 percent and Mitch Daniels 1 percent.

On some local issues, poll respondents were asked about the recommendations of the Georgia Tax Reform Council (which wants to lower the income tax rate in part by reinstating the state sales tax on groceries): 24 percent support the council’s recommendations and 55 percent oppose.

• Reinstating the sales tax on groceries: 35 percent support, 50 percent oppose.
• Adding the sales tax to services like haircuts and car repairs: 14 percent support, 70 percent oppose.
• Eliminating the state income tax by doubling the sales tax (the “Fair Tax” proposal): 40 percent support, 39 percent oppose.

Sarah Palin’s interest in the presidency is not being reciprocated by most Americans: Two-thirds of registered voters in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say she’s unqualified for the job, and more than half continue to rate her unfavorably overall.

Those results come after Palin, in a television interview this week, said she’d run in 2012 “if there’s nobody else to do it.” That echoed a comment in February, when she said she wouldn’t “close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future.”

This poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, suggests steep challenges. Palin appears to have gained little luster from the success of the Tea Party political movement with which she’d aligned: Just 39 percent of registered voters see her favorably, the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity. That’s essentially the same as her lows, 37 percent, last winter and spring.

Even fewer, just 27 percent, see her as qualified for the presidency, also essentially unchanged. Sixty-seven percent say she’s not qualified; this peaked at 71 percent in February.

While there are political and ideological divides on Palin, she faces hurdles across the board. Even in her own party, Republicans divide, 47 percent to 46 percent, on whether she’s qualified or unqualified to serve as president. Conservatives split, 45-48 percent, as do Tea Party supporters, 48-48 percent.

In only two groups do majorities see Palin as qualified – conservative Republicans, by 55-40 percent; and “strong” supporters of the Tea Party movement, by a broad 73-22 percent. (They’re a small group, one in 10 registered voters.)

Miller’s lead over Murkowski has dwindled to about 1,400 votes with many absentees yet to be tallied, but Murkowsk said Tuesday night in Anchorage: “I don’t see a scenario where the primary will turn out in my favor.”

It was a shocking defeat for Murkowski – polls released just before the primary election showed her with a supposedly healthy lead over Miller – and a huge victory for her political nemesis, former governor Sarah Palin.

Where Palin could not deliver a victory for Karen Handel in Georgia’s GOP primary for governor, she was able to propel Miller, an obscure political newcomer, to victory over the incumbent Alaska senator.

That’s what you hear now from the newspaper and cable TV “experts,” and obviously whatever they say has to be true, because otherwise they wouldn’t be on TV, would they?

It’s time for a reality check. Let’s look at the numbers from the national poll conducted for CBS News during the Aug. 20-24 time period:

Ahead of a rally in Washington this weekend that some say will test the strength of the Tea Party, a new CBS News poll finds that 29 percent of Americans say they are supporters of the movement. Fifty-four percent say they do not support the Tea Party.

Now, I’m no math expert, but if the Tea Party has the support of 29 percent of the people who are polled and is opposed by 54 percent of those polled, that would seem to indicate that Americans oppose the Tea Party by nearly a two-to-one margin. Am I missing something here?

The CBS poll is hardly an outlier. A Washington Post poll conducted in June with a similarly sized sample of respondents showed that 50 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party compared to 36 percent with a favorable opinion. The Post data also showed the percentage of “unfavorable” opinions of the Tea Party had been growing, not declining, for several months. A Gallup poll in April showed 37 percent support for the Tea Party at a national level.

Look at those results from three independent polls over time: 37 percent national support of Tea Partiers in April, 36 percent support in June, and 29 percent support in August. There seems to be a trend there.

I guess this is another of those instances, as Stephen Colbert has pointed out, where the facts have a liberal bias.

Back to the CBS poll, which also had this finding about a former half-term governor of Alaska:

Palin continues to receive unfavorable ratings from the American public overall. Just 23 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Palin, while 40 percent view her unfavorably.

Democrats (62 percent), moderates (44 percent) and liberals (61 percent) hold decidedly negative views of the former vice presidential nominee.

More than a third of the public (35 percent) is undecided or hasn’t heard enough about Palin to offer an opinion. Fewer Americans now hold a favorable view of Palin than in April, but her ratings are similar to what they were in March and last summer, shortly after she stepped down as governor.

Obviously, those numbers can’t be correct either, because everyone loves Sarah Palin and will elect whoever she endorses in a political race. Just ask Karen Handel.

Florida – this is the state where two wealthy businessmen made late entries into statewide races and have tried to spend their way to victories that may not happen.

In the Republican primary for governor, Rick Scott has spent nearly $40 million to try to take down Attorney General Bill McCollum, and for a time he had a substantial early lead in the polls.  But Scott, who once headed a hospital chain (HCA/Columbia) that was heavily fined for defrauding the government, has been sinking in late polls and faced the prospect of a close loss to McCollum as primary day approached.

In the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, billionaire financier Jeff Greene jumped into the race against U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek and has spent more than $22 million to try to win that party’s nomination.  Greene also had an early lead in the polls but has slumped behind Meek in the late going.  (Even if Meek wins the primary on Tuesday, he is still far behind Republican Marco Rubio and independent Charlie Crist in the Senate race.)

There has been a similar campaign approach in California, where wealthy businesswomen Meg Whitman (who’s the GOP nominee for governor) and Carly Fiorina (running against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer) are spending even larger amounts of money to try to win statewide office.  Whitman and Fiorina have already won their primaries.

Arizona – Sen. John McCain has been a favorite target of Tea Partiers and anti-immigration activists in the state that has become ground zero in the fight to seal the borders, but he is expected to win big in the Republican primary over former congressman J. D. Hayworth. 

McCain fought off the Hayworth challenge by reminding voters of Hayworth’s ties to imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and by persuading Sarah Palin to campaign for him in Arizona.

Alaska – While Palin may have helped McCain stave off defeat in Arizona, she has been less successful when endorsing other candidates in other states (just ask Karen Handel, who lost Georgia’s GOP primary for governor).

In Alaska’s Senate race, Palin backed Tea Party favorite Joe Miller in the Republican primary against Palin’s long-standing political adversary, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski.  Murkowski, like McCain, is expected to cruise to an easy victory in a race that has exposed just how unpopular Palin is with voters in her own home state.  As reported by The Hill’s Shane D’Aprile:

A Rasmussen poll from May found 50 percent of Alaska voters held an unfavorable view of Palin. Just 41 percent said they would back Palin for president in 2012 should she decide to run.

“I’m sure Palin’s had an impact [on Miller],” said Alaska-based pollster Ivan Moore. “And I’m sure it’s been a net negative for him. You shouldn’t even want the endorsement of someone with those ratings in the state.”

It may also have been a mistake to emphasize the Tea Party message of “too much government spending” in a state whose residents have benefited handsomely from federal earmarks and pork-barrel spending:

Alaska is also a state that has welcomed money from the federal government for infrastructure and transportation projects. And voters have rewarded politicians who have proven adept at securing those dollars. So it’s no surprise that Miller’s message might not resonate with Alaskans, who elected a man legendary for delivering earmarks for his home state to six terms in the Senate.

The late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was second only to the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) when it came to securing pork barrel spending for his home state. Were there more infrastructure in Alaska, joked one Republican consultant, Stevens might even rival Byrd for the number of roadways that bear his name.

“That messaging just doesn’t resonate as well here,” said one Republican close to the Murkowski camp. “Most Alaskans understand that federal government jobs are important to the Alaskan economy.”

The state is home to the country’s largest Coast Guard base and much of the state’s land is federally-owned. Each citizen also receives a yearly dividend from oil revenues, typically at least $2,000 per person. Millions upon millions of dollars in earmarks — demonized by some Republicans in Congress — have gone to projects in Alaska.

Even in the midst of a federal corruption probe back in 2007, Stevens managed to secure more than $200 million in earmarks from that year’s defense spending bill and he unapologetically backed what became a symbol for wasteful spending in Washington — a $58 million project derided as the “bridge to nowhere.”

In primary elections held Tuesday, two of Palin’s picks lost out in Wyoming and Washington.

Palin was supporting Rita Meyer, presumably another “mama grizzly” for the former half-term Alaska governor, in Wyoming’s Republican gubernatorial primary, but Meyer lost a close race to Matt Mead.

A Palin-backed candidate in the U.S. Senate race in Washington, teabagger favorite and former NFL player Clint Didier, finished third and did not make it into the general election race.

Of course, the trend of Palin losses can trace its beginnings to the Georgia Republican primary last week, where Karen Handel lost a close race to Nathan Deal.

Handel’s defeat also puts an end to any talk about a third term for Sonny Perdue.  Now, Perdue has been careful to say that he didn’t take sides in the Republican primary and that Handel wasn’t his gal, no matter what people may think.

“I didn’t weigh in on this campaign,” Perdue said two days after the runoff. “The people of Georgia can speak for themselves . . . I’m not an endorser, I trust the electorate.”

Okay, governor, you’ve established your alibi.  But regardless of what Perdue might say, his fingerprints and his people were all over the Handel campaign.  Although Perdue will deny it, I’m convinced he was looking to Handel to provide vindication for his lackluster administration by winning, in effect, a third term for Sonny Perdue.  But it didn’t happen.

In the months leading up to the primary and runoff elections, I was struck by something that always came up in casual conversations about politics outside the workplace.  Whenever Karen Handel’s name was mentioned as a contender for the GOP nomination, the word people invariably used to describe her was “mean.”

Handel obviously wanted voters to think that she was tough enough to run against male candidates in a male-dominated political process – thus her repeated use of the George W. Bush taunt, “Bring it on!”  But for Handel, what she thought was toughness came across to the outside world as mean-spirited.  I think that attitude of sourness and hostility eventually caught up with her in the runoff.

If there was a defining moment to the runoff campaign, it was that moment in a debate with Deal when Handel snarled:  “Facts are facts, and this is a campaign for governor. Things are tough, campaigns are tough, and it’s frankly time to put the big boy pants on because, candidly, if you can’t handle this, how are you going to handle Roy Barnes?”

That was a one-liner that could well have been crafted in advance by Handel’s media spokesman, Dan McLagan.  It is the kind of smart-assed retort for which McLagan has always been lauded by reporters who love a snappy quote that adds zest to a news article.

Unfortunately for Handel, this was a comment that came back to bite her in the butt – a remark that reinforced the mean, hard-edged image she already had with many voters.

As one of my reporter friends observed, “Down here in the South, you’re not supposed to sass your elders.”  Handel, in her channeling of McLagan, was not only sassing Deal (who is 20 years older than her) but was mocking his very manhood. In a party heavily influenced by angry, middle-aged white males, that was a very dangerous thing to be doing.

Another interesting aspect of the Handel campaign was the lengths she went to – even to the extent of having her campaign people tell lies for her – to try to back away from her efforts seven and eight years ago to solicit gay votes when she ran for Fulton County commissioner.  Handel went to extraordinary lengths to make sure people knew that now she was opposed to gay marriage and gay adoptions, but it still didn’t work for her.

I couldn’t help but think of George Wallace, who had been something of a racial moderate (by Southern standards, anyway) when he ran for governor of Alabama in 1958 and lost to a segregationist, John Patterson, who was supported by the Ku Klux Klan.  Wallace famously said after that loss that no one “will ever out-nigger me again.” And no one ever did.

It makes one wonder if Handel will similarly vow that “no one will ever out-faggot me again” as she prepares for some future political campaign.