Why America is growing tired of Palin

CNN ^ | 21 January 2011 | Gloria Borger

[APatientMan]

“Well, I’d hardly call them “transient.” For example, you’re talking about people involved in YAF, who tend to be the most conservative of kids; many go to schools such as Liberty, GMU, Grove City, and Hillsdale. Some of them include people like Jason Mattera, author of “Obama Zombies,” or the two that blew the whistle on ACORN.”

Sheds a different light than -

“They are all jazzed about most other conservatives, and even many who are RINOS, but for whatever reason they are not excited about Palin. My take is that she’s too close to their mother’s age. “

My opinion remains the same: College kids not loving Palin is more of an endorsement of her than anything and it’s about what I expect from that demographic. “She’s not conservative enough.” is probably not a reason often given for not loving her.

[sargon]

So, you can't supply any. That was my point.

I can supply some if I dance around through the search function long enough. Do it yourself, they're there. I've seen them on this site, and within the M.O.E. It's not my job to go hunting back throuhg months of poll postings to locate a couple of them, just because you don't believe me. But they HAVE occurred.

[sargon]

A few months ago, she was only losing by 2-3 in most polls, but more recently---which is the point of this thread---she has lost support with the so-called independents.

Yes, and a few months hence, she'll be close again, and so the roller coaster goes. The polls will start to mean something when she actually decides to run. Just because the current snapshot is less favorable, SO WHAT?

I'm looking at the long term, you're focusing on polls which obviously can and will fluctuate wildly. In other words, they're downright irrelevant, period. So that puts the importance of this thread into perspective.

[sargon]

I ask you for a poll-—any poll-—showing Palin anywhere close to Obama, which you can’t or won’t produce . . . and I’m spinning off the charts.

Funny. When you responded to me earlier, you said "but more recently---which is the point of this thread---she has lost support with the so-called independents."

So you are saying that I should only cite a poll within a narrow time frame? I thought you said "any poll". I told you such polls exists, and they do. So I noted that, and then you moved the target.

[sargon]

Yawn. OK, I did some legwork for you. Here's some information from a Democratic poll within the last 10 days, during which Palin was being relentlessly slandered by the media 24/7. The original FR thread can be found here, and let me quote from the source article:

To read some of the reviews telling Sarah Palin it's over as to any hope of winning a general election, you would think she would be down in the polls versus Obama by an enormous margin, particularly if a poll were taken in the days after the Tucson shooting when the media was in full blame mode tying Palin's electoral map to the shooting.

But if this poll conducted January 9-12 by Greenberg Quinlin Rosner, a Democratic polling firm, for Democracy Corps is accurate, Palin is down 10% among voters and 6% among people who voted in 2010.

Got that? Even in that ridiculous momentary environment, Palin was down only 10% among RV and only 6% among LV.

That LV figure is easily within the poll's margin of error. Which means she's competitive, K?

As a matter of fact, let's take a closer look at some of the supplemental information reported from that poll of 1000 likely voters:

200 Youth Oversample

200 Unmarried Women Oversample

80 Nonwhite Oversample

As you can see, the oversampling was done in three demographics where Palin is especially weak.

So, like I said, rumors of Sarah's political death, or even her supposed weakness against Obama, are greatly exaggerated. I don't see what positive purpose your skepticism serves.

O ye of little faith!

[LS]

No, I didn't move. In case you forgot the article in the thread itself cited polling data saying she had lost indies. And your 10% poll? Seriously? So, if someone is behind 10, you can claim bad methodology and have them ahead? I suppose that works in some really, really bad polls . . . and this was what you came up with? We won't get anywhere.

But tell you what: when you get a real poll, by Ras, Mason-Dixon, Gallup, WSJ, Zogby, even an average on RCP, showing Palin up, please ping me.

[LS]

Hmm. Once again, you and many others here want to avoid the real question: why aren't they jazzed about her? Why do they seem to prefer, on average, other candidates?

"She's too conservative." Really? Why is it one of the things that attracts them to Huckabee is that they think he is more conservative as a Christian, or that he supports the "Fair Tax," while they don't know that Palin does.

This is just one example. Maybe because she endorsed McCain, and while she says she's for tight borders, a lot of questions remain about what her stance is on illegal immigrants already here. Why would you just assume that she's "too conservative" for them and "not conservative enough" in many cases?

[APatientMan]

“Hmm. Once again, you and many others here want to avoid the real question: why aren’t they jazzed about her? Why do they seem to prefer, on average, other candidates? “

I don’t think I’m going to be able to give you an answer that will satisfy you. You’ve presented a couple of ideas:

“My take is that she’s too close to their mother’s age. “
“...one of the things that attracts them to Huckabee is that they think he is more conservative as a Christian”

Maybe it’s the non-stop negative media coverage of Palin. Maybe it’s the fact that she doesn’t try to be everything to everyone. Maybe it’s because they are college kids that lack the experience to know better.

Those would be my guesses. Is there anything that you think can be done about those guesses that will jazz up college kids?

[LS]

Actually, yes. I think they want to see her with clearer, more developed positions on a lot of things, esp. the tax question. (This isn't just kids---I get this all the time at Liberty Groups/Tea Parties, where there is this Huck Love because he is a Fair Taxer, which, BTW, I'm not).

I think she'll probably have to at some point dump the celebrity approach, which has worked well to an extent, but has also made her seem less than serious as a world leader.

I absolutely agree the media has been horrible, and there is no doubt that ANY conservative is going to get the same treatment.

There's still plenty of time: 22 months. And Obama can revert to his fumbling, arrogant self---but even then, if you look at RealClearPolitics going back to last March, with the exception of one PPP poll about every quarter (out of several PPP polls), Obama is just crushing her: mid- to high double digits. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_palin_vs_obama-1169.html#polls and click link at the bottom for older polls).

The really bad thing about that is that she didn't gain much ground when he had collapsing poll numbers everywhere. She kinda got close just as they polled right before the November election.

[APatientMan]

LS - Thank you for your insight. Much appreciated.

This year looks like it is on track to be as interesting as any in our history.

[sargon]

But tell you what: when you get a real poll...

You asked for any poll, then a recent poll, and I provided one.

Sarah was within 6% on that poll with LV, which is within the margin of error if I'm not mistaken. Why would you try to focus on the less reliable RV figure? Nevermind, I know why.

Sarah is competitive, even during a relentless smear campaign, and even though the poll I cited oversampled with women, youth, and non-whites, all demographics in which Palin is supposedly weak.

You do realize that Reagan was 30 points behind for quite some time, including after he announced? Then, eventually, the 1980 election happened, and the rest is history.

So, to summarize, after asking for ANY poll, you then said show you a better poll. You didn't ask specifically for Rasmussen or anybody else. That's a moving target.

Alas, you are believing the negative LSM spin. Maybe I'm believing the "Palinista" spin, but I'm happy to stick with that versus the nabobs. Don't be afraid, LS. Sarah can win.

Sarah's numbers will come around, and naysaying serves no purpose at this point, 2 years out. Once a few people throw their hats into the ring, the polling data will become much more relevant.

If there's someone else you'd rather cheer for, by all means do so. But you don't have to tear down Palin in the process.

I bet there's at least one thing we can agree on: Romney getting the nomination is a recipe for a GOP disaster. IMHO, Romney's one of the few GOP candidates who would guarantee an Obama reelection, since he would totally de-energize the TEA Party base, which will be critical in 2012.

It's just not in the cards for Mitt, and thank God for that...

[LS]

Just to be clear: there is no one else I'd rather cheer for than Palin. But I'd rather she not be just "not Obama," and have her stuff together on all the issues. There is probably a lot of room to pick up voters, but that RCP 17% average bugs me. Yes, I know Reagan. And Reagan won precisely because he was appealing to middle America. For Pete's sake, he won the TEAMSTERS vote! I don't think we can always go around thinking our candidate can pick up 17 points.

Now, PRV mentioned another possibility, a third party candidate and today Trump was talking about running. That would really throw a wrench into things, because he would pick up votes that otherwise would likely go to the Republican.