Posted on 06/15/2011 3:23:17 PM PDT by techno
It depends on who you are, to the anti-Romney crowd the numbers look good, to the pro-Romney crowd they look bad.
If you look at the poll, you’ll see that about 40% strongly disagree on questions favorable to Sarah Palin; 40% also had a very unfavorable opinion of her.
Probably they are democrats, and apparently they want republicans to pick her as our Presidential nominee.
Only that question was of “republicans only”, the poll was of “1000 General Population Respondents”.
Of those with opinions, 60% are unfavorable, 40% favorable.
There are those who see her as the biggest threat to Sarah Palin (who hasn’t announced yet), so they are trying to attack her pre-emptively by claiming that Michelle is secretly working for Mitt Romney.
It’s a classic smear by association, without any actual evidence for an association. I strongly doubt Sarah Palin would approve, but for some Palin supporters, they don’t really seem to care.
Continuing on that, the poll shows more support for the “democratic nominee” for President than republican, which again suggests that there are more democrats than republicans in their sample, although there were a lot of “i don’t knows” in that group.
Oddly, while the republicans, when asked for their 1st choice, chose Palin over Romney, when paired against Obama the overall group favored Romney over Palin. Which could mean again that there were democrats pretending to be republicans to support Palin, or now that I think about it, just means that those who didn’t pick Palin are slightly more likely to vote for Obama vs Palin than those who didn’t pick Romney are to vote Obama vs Romney.
The only person this poll really looks good for, and in a scary way for conservatives, is Giuliani, who has just barely made a stir about running, and still pulls 15% in the poll. I would rather not go through the whole Giuliani thing again.
Oddly, of those with opinions, Pelosi is at about 60% unfavorable, 40% favorable. Reid however is at 64% unfavorable, 36% favorable.
And NOBODY in the list has better favorables than unfavorables. Which suggests that people were highly partisan (democrats unfavorable to republicans, and vice versa), and within their own party were also picking favorites.
Weiner had astounding negatives.
First of all, I’m not a fellow. Secondly, I’m not in the least embarrassed by what I posted. All of you who gave me a synopsis of the movie looked literally at the entirety of the movie, and not at the real point of the character. Dusty Rhodes is one person in public and another behind the scenes. This is what I, at least, increasingly believe is the case with Sarah Palin. I am not comparing her literally one-for-one with the character, but to the overarching theme of the movie.
Another, and perhaps more apt comparison would be to Pat Buchanan in the years he ran for president. She reminds me a great deal of him before his first run.
No one has been so closely examined as Sarah Palin, we know everything about her, we just went through 24 thousand pages of her emails, and what everything has revealed, is that there is without a doubt, NO Palin other than the one we see.
You really are a supremely ignorant person and following the 24 thousand page look into her this past week, your timing couldn’t be stupider.
Are you old enough to know who Godfrey was?
Are you old enough to understand what the times were like, when that movie was made?
Your opinion and your impression of Palin is based on misconceptions and your own biases; nothing else!
Not a one of Palin's recently released 24,000 e-mails shows her as anything other than the way she has always presented herself.
Pat Buchanan? Are you serious? REALLY?
That's even more pathetic than your overreach vis-a-vis Dusty! LOL
You want someone to compare Sarah Palin to? Try MAGGIE THATCHER !
To pass off that stupid lie you have to ignore that Michelle Bachmann hired Ed Rollins and kicked off her campaign by attacking Palin, and definitely is taking a pass on Romney, you cannot pretend that Bachmann has not launched an anti-Palin campaign strategy that appears to be designed to curry favor with Romney.
Don't start that Pro Romney stuff again like we had to deal with in 2007.
Palin has said numerous times and as recently as last week, that she would not run third party.
Was that Governor Buchannan, the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in the last Presidential race, it surprises you that that person would be a frontrunner for the 2012 Presidential race?
Oh my, are you actually part of the “Michelle Bachmann Stalking Horse” conspiracy rumor-mongering?
Rollins, for whatever stupid reason Rollins does things, went after the person who would most likely vie for the votes Bachmann would be competing for. Bachmann certainly isn’t competing for Romney voters, she’s competing for conservative voters.
Attacking Palin seems to me to be a stupid campaign strategy, but not as stupid as pretending that Bachmann is a closet liberal stalking horse who secretly wishes Romney were President.
But clearly, some Palin supporters are looking to tie anybody who seems a threat to Palin with the RINO, Romney label. And they are also trying to smear Bachmann supporters on FR by accusing those defending Bachmann from their attacks of “starging Pro-Romney” arguments.
If the site owner wishes freepers to stop supporting Michelle Bachmann, he will make his wishes clear, as he has about other candidates. Until then, I will feel free to defend Bachmann, or any other candidate permitted, from bizarre politically-motivated smears.
I don’t even particularly like Bachmann as a presidential pick. I’d much prefer Palin. But I’m not going to falsely accuse her of working for Romney just because I’d rather someone else win. It’s clear that some Palin supporters have no level they won’t stoop to.
isn’t a campaign purpose to get those without opinion’s as well as get those that have a somewhat negative opinions to have a somewhat positive opinion? If that is the case than Palin has the oppurtunity to get 60% of the vote. which means she can also get 51% fot he vote. Or in other words ther eis a path to victory for her.
A case can also be made that Mitt could wind up with higher negatives than Palin at the end since 285 have no opinion. the MSM hasn’t attacked him yet. They will.
The facts are that Bachmann kicked off her campaign with a highly paid, hand picked attack on Palin, while she has made a point to avoid attacking Romney.
This nonsense you are doing now is exactly the indirect way that you used to use when you would fight for Romney, it looks like the defending Bachmann/attacking Palin is going to be your pro-Romney strategy this time.
Speaking of "smears", Rollins and Bachmann have only themselves to blame for the the stalking horse charges, given what transpired last week.
You should also notice that Cain, who leads Bachmann, and is closer to Palin in the polls, has not been called a stalking horse by anybody.
There's a reason for that.
I agree with you — the point of a campaign is to get 51% of the people to like you enough to vote for you.
I apologize if my posts suggested that I put credence in this polling. I was just pointing out that those who WERE presenting the polling as important seemed to me to be taking liberties in their interpretation of the numbers.
I found some of the answers in the poll to be interesting, especially on wars and on the debt ceiling. The poll clearly had two sets of opposing respondents. And from a Palin perspective, the numbers were as good as any so far on favorable/unfavorable. I think the “1st choice” question is skewed by the number and names of the candidates provided. I think Giuiliani (who got 11%, not 15% as I mistakenly typed earlier) draws votes from Romney. I wasn’t aware Roemer was considering a run.
But if I had to pick a “winner” from this poll, I would say it is Rick Perry. Here’s a guy who hasn’t talked about running until the last couple of weeks, who wasn’t on the lists of people expected to run, and he gets 8% in this poll — that’s 4th place.
Amazing, you are playing the exact same record that you played in 2007. You were one of the most dedicated Romney people, while constantly denying it and claiming that you only defended him constantly because of those nasty antiRomney posters but of course you didn't particularly care for him, you were 'forced' to defend him out of 'fairness and honesty'.
He’s not a woman, and I don’t believe Palin supporters see him as a real threat to her base of support.
Bachmann invited attacks because of Rollins. But it’s usually the left that makes up stuff about candidates. Nobody deserves to be falsely accused of something, even if they did go negative. Surely there are actual, factual things that you could attack Bachmann for if you wanted.
I don’t know what worries me more though — that freepers are willing to attack someone not long ago thought of as the elected leader of the tea party movement simply for partisan political reasons, or that some freepers actually have convinced themselves that Michelle Bachmann would support Romney, that Romney would actually pick her as VP, and that the establishment accepts Michelle as part of the inside crowd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.