Posted on 02/12/2011 1:12:28 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
bttt
Nice job.....
Palin included.
Re the racial thing: I think that the white voters who chose to vote for Obama because they were raised with racial equality as a holy truth (as was I and anyone growing up in the 70s) and thought, it’s TIME for a Black President, feel now that they gave him his chance. They will not feel the need to vote for Obama the second time out of the desire for racial equality. If they did not have fun in his 4 years (probably got laid off, taxes went up, etc.), they will NOT vote to re-elect him.
There was a biography done on Reagan by the History channel aired last weekend. Very well done!
As I watched the program, the parallels I noticed between Reagan and Palin were astounding. They were too numerous to list and won’t even try except to say this.
Prior to Reagan winning his first term we heard ALL the same chatter we are hearing now that he wasn’t electable and couldn’t win against the buffoon Carter.
Reagan won in a landslide!
Another 2 years of the current buffoon illegally occupying the WH and history is going to repeat itself and somebody else the MSM is saying can’t win will be left scratching their collective heads after Palin wins in a landslide.
I was talking to a 19-year-old about her, and he admitted that what he hated about her was her voice, her folksy accent, and agreed that it made her sound stupid.
While I think America can handle a President with ANY regional accent, maybe a little vocal coaching can modulate her accent and those high notes she gets into. Remember that Rush Limbaugh modulated his accent away -- listen to his brother speak for how he probably started -- and it hasn't hurt him any. She doesn't have to talk like a Los Angeles voice over artist, but she could modulate a tad.
“Thank you Brices Crossroads for your wonderful piece.”
Back atcha, Techno. And if I might be so presumptuous as to quote from your own incisive analysis of the crosstabs of the recent NBC-WSJ poll that had Obama beating Palin 55-33, you observed that 57% of the white voters in that poll stated they definitely planned to vote against Obama and only 27% definitely planned to vote for him. You wrote:
“But why you know the NBC/WSJ poll and other MSM polls that show Palin way down to Obama are bogus can be found in the category of WHITE voters. I confess I missed this the first time around but these numbers are the key to understand why Obama is very, very vulnerable in 2012. Only 27% of WHITE voters at this time would DEFINITELY PLAN TO VOTE to re-elect Obama while a whopping 57% of WHITE voters DEFINITELY PLAN NOT TO VOTE FOR THE MESSIAH IN 2012.
Now you my ask why this is the most critical numbers? Well folks, in the most simplistic terms 77% of the electorate in 2010 were WHITE voters. In 2012 I would venture to say it will stay in the 75%-77% range because of the intensity of animosity towards Obama. You take 75% and multiply that by 27 what do you get? 20.3%. And now let’s break down the what Obama could get in 2012 among non-white voters: 95% from African-Americans who represent 13% of the overall electorate; 67% of the Hispanic vote which represents 9% of the electorate, and 60% of the Asian vote which represents 2% of the electorate. Now let’s add that up:
WHITE VOTERS: 27% X 75= 20.3
A/A: 95% x 13= 12.4
Hispanic 67% x 9= 6.0
Asian 60% x 2= 1.2
Other 60% x 1= 0.6
Total 40.5%
Note that I have maximized Obama’s percentages with non-white voters. In actual fact in 2010 the Dems only got 89% of the Black vote and 60% of the Hispanic vote. But you then ask what if Obama gets the same 37% of the WHITE VOTE IN 2012 as the Dems got in 2010 and not 27% as is now reported by Marist how would that change the numbers. Well let’s take a look:
White voters: 37%x 75% 27.8
That would increase Obama’s percentage of the vote by 7.5% to a total of 48% overall. But what if Obama was only able to get percentages with non-white voters comparable to 2010 assuming he gets 37% of the white vote.
White voters: 37% x 75 27.8
A/A 89 x 13 11.6
Hispanic 60 x 9 5.4
Asian 60 x 2 1.2
Other 60 x 1 0.6
Total 46.6%
But what if white voters represent 77% of the 2012 vote as they did in 2010 and with accompanying declines in the non-white percentage of the vote given 2010 totals in each group:
White voters 37 x 77 28.5
A/A 89 x 12 10.7
Hispanic 60 x 8 4.8
Asian 60 x 2 1.2
Other 60 x 1 0.6
Total 45.8%”
You very concisely demonstrate the deep hole Obama is in with white voters and the fact that they are concentrated in battleground states like Ohio and PA that he absolutely must have. And his numbers with whites have really failed to rise out of the thirties. In my view, based upon a strictly demographic analysis, Obama must be considered an underdog for reelection UNLESS the GOP nominates a candidate who is soft on illegal immigration, affirmative actions and political correctness, which positions would drive down white turnout. Such a mistake would be compounded if the GOP nominated a candidate like Mitch Daniels who wants to deemphasize the social and cultural issues and cut adrift that huge chunk of votes (which are principally white evangelicals).
Sarah Palin is EXACTLY the right candidate to maximize white turnout, which is where the 2012 election will be won or lost. She alone among the GOP candidates is unafraid and completely uncowed by the PC police.
You will get endless battleship salvos against her from the SCUM on TV and ALL TV including Fox is s***.
The one thing about the midwest that came out in 2010 was a few states I think like Wisconsin where it was a GOP blowout. VA was another. There election was 2009?? I forget.
FL to some extent as well.
Pissant must hate you and your conservatives principles,
Keep up the Good Work!
Pretty soon it will be Palin vs Obama.
Obama can't win any GOP candidate!
Whoever wins the GOP Nomination wins the Presidency
“I was talking to a 19-year-old about her, and he admitted that what he hated about her was her voice, her folksy accent, and agreed that it made her sound stupid.
While I think America can handle a President with ANY regional accent, maybe a little vocal coaching can modulate her accent and those high notes she gets into. Remember that Rush Limbaugh modulated his accent away — listen to his brother speak for how he probably started — and it hasn’t hurt him any. She doesn’t have to talk like a Los Angeles voice over artist, but she could modulate a tad.”
*****************************************
I have heard the same thing occasionally as well. I am not sure how widespead it is. I wuold be willing to bet that any hostility to her accent is to be found principally on the Northeastern and West Coasts (where it won’t matter, becasue those states are voting for Obama anyway) and in the South (where it won’t matter because those states are not voting for Obama, accent or not). In the Midwest, I think her accent can be a net plus for her as opposed to George Bush’s drawl.
I think what is more significant is that we live in the television age. Everything is visual. Obama’s one advantage, if he has one, is that he has a good voice, a deep baritone (as he reads the teleprompter). When he gets away from the teleprompter, he tends to stutter and to mispronounce, but his voice is perhaps his only asset.
In 1960, those who listened to the Kennedy Nixon debates on the radio overwhelmingly thought Nixon, with his rich baritone voice won the debates over the much more highly pitched and heavily Massachusetts-accented Kennedy. Those who watched on television saw a cool customer in Kennedy whose looks of bemusement at Nixon and youthful good looks made whatever Nixon was saying seem silly. The more people heard of Kennedy’s accent the more it grew on them (although I believe I read he tried to deepen his voice as well). I think with familiarity with Palin’s accent, people will grow accustomed to it and even like it. Her serious tone at the Reagen Ranch shows she is able to modulate when the occasion call for it.
Palin has the same advantage over Obama. She is much quicker on her feet (Remember her lipstick on a pit bull improvisation when her teleprompter failed at the RNC convention) and she is a very adept performer before the camera. I would have to say the edge as a communicator goes to Palin based upon her adroitness in give and take and her edge in telegenics.
I could live with a Daniels-Palin ticket.
Sarah Palin is the one person that everyone knows would get energy prices lower by letting companies drill oil and gas, and building coal, nuclear, gas refineries plants!
I saw that. Very impressive.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2672490/posts?page=71#71
It would be easier to beat Hillary.
I think Obama loses Ohio and Florida. It will take a lot of fraud for him to hold PA but he is capable of that.
On the flip side - Obama will have at least a billion to spend on advertising and media. He OWNS all of TV including Prince Al Waleed’s Fox.
The people who vicerally hate Palin are anti-Christian. She will also have the Ivy League elites against her.
We have not had a non-Ivy League POTUS since Reagan.
Palin will be at the top of the ticket.
Daniels is a huge RINO, has rejected all social conservatives and is about as exciting as watching paint dry.
I agree 100%. This is the only ace in the whole to reboot America and recapitalize this country. Energy exploration and production creates huge wealth, jobs and tax revenues.
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.