Skip to comments.I think Palin's unfavoribles are wide, but less than an inch deep
Posted on 09/18/2011 3:07:02 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative
Obviously there is no logical reason for her unfavorables in the polls to be what they are. Did she do anything like let an intern give her oral sex or get involved in some disasterous scandal ? absolutely not. There is NOTHING on her. They have looked and looked and looked. Nobody has found a thing. She seems to be the kind of leader that the American people are wanting to represent them.
They do. I contend to you that her unfavoribles mean NOTHING. It is useless polling data and should have no impact on who wins the nomination in 2012. If she gets the nomination, she would win electoral votes based on national and global events (the economy, ect)
I believe the number of Americans who hate her with a passion is very very small. The unfavoribles you see in the polls are a result of some very shallow group think left over from the 2012. Nobody has seen Saraj Palin run her own national campaign. It would not take much at all to turn those numbers inside out.
What we see here is that the anti palin people in this country are just very loud. Conservatives hear them and for some reason think the high volume of their voice mean they have huge numbers. Even some here on FR get their information from people who hate them and then they are ignorant enough to toss it around like it is fact !
I guess you haven't been reading her articles or listening to her speeches have you?
For example, if any mayor of a small town (less than 7,000 at the time) took office with the town owing $1 million in long term debt and left a few years later with the town owing nearly $23 million in long term debt - and saddled the town with over $2.5 million in un-necessary legal bills resulting from a grossly mis-managed real estate deal, that politician would be a laughing stock here --- except for Palin, who did exactly that in Wasilla.
Unless she starts hitting the Pork Rinds, eating Rocky Road Ice Cream by the Gallon and can magically play guitar, not so much.....
Texas is a big place and I don’t consider where Perry is from to be the south. Southern is Georgia Miss Alabama and SC. (Louisiana and Florida are something else again). Perry is a west Texas guy. I consider West and north Texas to be more central US like OK and Kansas. But that’s just me.
If I may, the Alaska government “could no longer function properly” in part because of unintended consequences from an ethics law Sarah “championed”. She said so in her “I’m out” speech.
What amazes me is how clueless you PDS'ers are.
OK, help me out here. Palin runs, who would be in that list for her Sec State, Sec Def, Sec of EPA?
The GOP candidate is going to need large money to combat the unions and the Enemedia. The Demoncats relied heavily on foreign campaign contributions, union mega-bucks, trial lawyers, Hollywood and other deep pockets. What endears Sarah to us is her ability to piss off the Establishment. NEWS FLASH: That is where the GOP money is. Sure we can show up at rallies with a baby in one arm and a US flag waving in the other, but she will need plenty of loot to get whatever message out you think that she is needs to get out.
So far, the Sarah "campaign" is eerily similar to Barry's Hope & Change campaign where the Obamunists inserted whatever their felt needs were into the "Hope & Change" that Barry would provide them. In the case of the Palin fans, y'all are similarly projecting whatever your heart wants into her unstated campaign platform.
We love her because she is attractive and makes us feel that she is for all the things we are for and against all the things that we are against. And where Barry was sold to the public as a sinless Messiah, Sarah is also being sold by y'all as the sinless Holy Virgin Mary. EXACTLY the same recipe that won Barry the Presidency.
“can you show me were rank and file GOP voters ever jumped out on a limb to nominate someone like Palin?”
Reagan was that type of candidate. He was viewed as the weakest opponent by the Carter administration. The press tried to paint a picture of him that ranged from a tottering old fool to the inept Bedtime for Bonzo guy. Every time a conservative runs they will be attacked and a bunch of nervous Republicans will end up nominating a Democrat-light candidate in their place; Dole, Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain. These candidates end up losing because the base sits home and the Democrats paint them as having the same policies. Republicans need conservative Democrats to believe there is a true difference between the candidates before they will support a Republican. Nominating a RINO never ends up working out the way Rove and company tell us it will....
So it's Sarah Palin's fault that Obama's goons misused it to attack and try to destroy her after the 2008 election? Blame the victim, eh?
BTW, the law was passed in response to Murkowski's corruption and well before she had any idea that she would be McCain's running mate.
Sorry but that dog don't hunt.
Anybody who has read more than a thread on two since 2008 knows full well that Sarah is NOT nearly 'uptown' enough for you. But are you really really going to call out Sarah over 'mismanaged real estate deal' given what the really smart politicians have done to real estate/mortgages? I really do not care if you like her or not but I do not find you to be a competent judge of character.
And how'd that work out for Obama?
My sense of the whole situation is that after all the rest destroy each other Palin will step in and all the negative from the conservatives and the independents will fade away.
There is nobody that is going to rid America of the DC Prostitution ring, except SP, and that is why the slimy bastards on the GOP side must destroy her. The worst of the lot Perry and Romney. As bad as Romney is as least he can be trusted sometime. Some people have courage and then there are people like you that don't recognize it.
You have PDS and everyone that posts on SP threads knows it.
Ah yes. Aren’t you the poster that blames Palin because she didn’t know law better than the lawyers that crafted it? Yes. You are.
RFK "connected" with some people because his brother had been assassinated.
Have you been in a coma the past 45 years?
And how'd that work out for Obama?
Are you saying that the Tea Party is no different than those Obamunists who were expecting to get some of that Obama-stash? Bumper-sticker, narcissistic Entitlement mentality?
You asked the question.
Reagan was not high risk in 1980. It was his third run for Pres. He was a successful Gov of a big state. Of the candidates running, he was was the safe bet. The only one who beat him in polling was Ford.
Blame the victim, eh?
Victim must bear some of the blame if she helps create and install her opponents “weapon of choice”, hayna?
Some people have courage and then there are people like you that don’t recognize.
I will hold me nose and vote of Perry or Romney as I did for McCain. I will encourage others and send money to support a true conservative that will do what she says she will do. There are hundreds of thousand that feel the same way I do.
Precisely. Coming off the 2008 election, Axelrod, Plouffe, Emmanuel, Dunne, Jarrett, and Rouse identified her as Obama's biggest threat for 2012 and set in motion a plan to destroy her before she could take down Obama. People around here have completely forgotten as to how badly the Republican Party was beaten in 2008, and how the GOP's leaders had all but given up, except for Sarah Palin. She was the only one willing to keep on fighting at the time, and so Obama's goons targeted her.
And there are a bunch of people on FR today who are still enabling Obama's goons with their PDS nonsense. FR will be a much better place for Conservatism once JimRob gets around to finally cleaning house, as he's promised to do.
No he wasn't. See post 69. Your Carter example is not relevant. We are talking about getting the nomination from GOP rank and file. Of the people running in '80, Reagan always lead in the polls. He was not some dark horse with incredibly high negatives coming from behind for an upset.
Yep, tis true!
Actually she made a commitment to announce one way or another within the next 12 days, so as not to be seen as “stringing people along”. We’ll see.
Please see my post 70.
...and much ado about nothing.
Point to me where I mentioned TEA Party.
Funny...I sure don't remember it that way.
John Mccain was the only Republican that would have been able to win in AZ, JD was probably the worst Senate Candidate I have ever seen. Even a dog knows you do not crap where you eat.
CA is lost cause for Republicans and has been for a long time. Where do you come up with this logic of yours? Nightmares after too many Burritos?
So you are blaming the victim?
Who is "Geoff"? I wasn't bashing Palin, either. I was responding in a Vanity thread about Palin about why she may have some negatives. What the hell are you talking about, samantha?
“So will Palin become a full-fledged candidate when she returns to Iowa on September 3?
She was asked that very question by several reporters during her whirlwind walking tour of the Iowa State Fair on August 12.
Here she is, in her own words:
Q: When is a good time? Do you have a timeline?
Palin: I have said that that August/September timeframe is important for logistical and legal reasons to jump in there, but...
Q: So by next month?
Palin: I think that just practically speaking that has to be kind of a drop dead time. Also, in fairness to supporters, who are standing on the timeline, and this is what I have told Todd over and over again, I don’t want to be seen as or perceived as stringing people along, asking supporters, ‘Oh don’t just jump in there on someone else’s bandwagon because I may jump in, so hold off a little bit.’ That is not fair to them. After another month or two goes by, they need to know who it is that they can jump behind. Now more than ever, everybody has got to get involved in this 2012 election. They need to get out there and campaign for their chosen candidates, its all the more reason to hurry up and decide.
A few moments later, there was this exchange:
Q: Will you know by the next time you are here in Iowa whether you will be in, over Labor Day?
Palin: I doubt it. By the next time I am here by September 3? I don’t know if within the next couple of weeks I will be ready for an announcement or not.
Q: So the end of September is no longer a viable deadline?
Palin: No, he was asking about my next visit here on September 3, if I would be ready for an announcement September 3. And I said I don’t know if I would be ready by September 3.
Q: So the end of September would still be your timetable?
Palin: That is still a possibility for a timetable. Yes, definitely.”
So the end of September is definitely a possibility?
1980: Reagan’s bid for the Republican nomination in 1976 paid off in 1979, when he emerged as the front-runner for the 1980 Republican nomination. Although George H.W. Bush came the closest to actually toppling Reagan in the early primaries, Reagan’s closest competition in 1979 Gallup polls for support among Republicans nationwide came from Gerald Ford, who never formally entered the race. In January 1979, Reagan led Ford by 31% to 26%. Republicans’ preferences for the two were about tied from May through July, but by August, Reagan was up, 36% to 22%, and he maintained a strong lead through the end of the year. When the 1979 trend is re-configured by substituting Ford supporters’ second choice, Reagan’s position looks even stronger — he beat John Connally and Howard Baker by more than 20 points in each poll.
“I guess you haven’t been reading her articles or listening to her speeches have you? “
People don’t see that Palin when she gives public interviews. They see a chatty cathy with an annoying voice. I watched her alaska governor debate and a charlie rose interview from before she was picked for VP. She was disciplined and professional.
This is the Palin we want (you may have to skip to around 4:00 to hear Palin)
This law was needed to protect the people of Alaska from politicians like Murkowski. It was "fine tuned" and will keep the Alaskans from being victims of dishonest politicians.
You are mean and insensitive,and sign off like you are some serious patriot.
There are other people that have 911 in their tag line and are very nice,decent and give us good patriotic feelings about them. You have just the opposite effect. You are never positive, you are always negative.
If the victim helps create and install the weapon opponents use to bring her down, she deserves some of the blame. So, yes, some of Sarah’s trouble is Sarah’s fault. I’m charging a short-sighted, slightly niave, inexperienced, over-trusting exec for her own sudden, unexpected, forced career change.
i still think when all of the chips are on the table, they would vote for her with the economy this bad
i still think when all of the chips are on the table, they would vote for her with the economy this bad
No you're not. You are blaming a conservative for being the victim of Dem operatives.
Please now see my post 88.
m not sure how you overcome this.
It is not a problem one has to overcome really. If given a choice between Obama and Sarah a conservative women has no choice.
Yes, I think quitting was a mistake--if she wants to continue in politics. While I understand the difficulties created by the idiotic ethics complaints, I have to wonder if she didn't have alternatives to quitting, such as asking the legislature to change the law to address the abuses. Ditto for finding a way to defray costs.
If she doesn't want to seek office again, then I don't think she hurt herself.
Why is it that these posters that know what happened keep telling lies or repeating the DNC talking points? You would have to have rice for brains to post on these threads and not get it. The only answer is that they know but Mommy never told them not to tell lies about people. They learned that Clinton could lie, and they think that people will not notice if they lie.
You obviously were not alive at the time to know what was happening.
Yes, I am. Im charging a short-sighted, slightly niave, inexperienced, over-trusting exec with accidentally helping cause her own sudden, unexpected, forced career change. Don’t tell me I’m not.
And open herself for MORE violation complaints. What the heck are you thinking!
So she should have allowed Dem operatives to bring the state of Alaska to it's knees?
Never trust a politician that will not relinquish power for the good of the people.
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.