Posted on 05/15/2010 10:25:30 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
In 1978, Americans were becoming more and more concerned about an economy that seemed to be falling to pieces under Jimmy Carter. But they were not yet ready to embrace Ronald Reagan to lead them out of the mess. In 2010, the same seems to be true for Obama and Palin. In 1978, conservatism was on the rise as Americans began to turn to their traditional roots for solutions to problems that just seemed unsolvable using the standard old inside the box ideas. Groups formed to oppose liberalism, communism and the Jimmy Carter agenda. Today, Tea Party groups are growing in much the same way. Like conservatives in 1978, today's Tea Party groups are not yet set on naming a leader. As in 1978, the same concerns about Ronald Reagan seem to now apply to Sarah Palin.
While many Republican insiders considered Reagan a formidable opponent for 1980, just as they do Palin today, they were concerned about nominating someone with whom swing voters were very uneasy at a time when the sale would have to be made against high liberal vitriol and a hostile press. Selling a hard conservative against the media tide would be difficult for someone considered a B grade movie actor whose "I can see Russia from my house" moment came when he starred in a movie called "Bedtime for Bonzo." And although Palin didn't act in the skits that bedevil her today, the image remains the same whether the caricature is of a goofy guy hanging out with a monkey or a ditzy lady talking about seeing Russia from her house.
The latest polls on Sarah Palin are actually quite good if you analyze them correctly. Here's the bad news: 38% view her unfavorably. Here's the good news: 24% view her favorably. Here's the best news: 37% are undecided. Win those undecideds over and she can go over 50% favorable.
You'd think I'd find it shocking that after all the work that Palin has done since January that her favorables would not have come up. Yes, I do question that. Conservatives4Palin said the poll "has been criticized as being weighted against Republicans." But the real surprise here is in the number of those who are undecided. Come on. You've got to be kidding me. You're telling me that 37% of the people don't know whether they like Sarah Palin or not? That's like doing a poll on Tiger Woods and finding out that 37% of people are undecided as to whether he was unfaithful in his marriage. There was just too much media coverage for that many people to not be able to come to a decision.
Andrew Malcolm at the Los Angeles Times thinks there a lot of people holding out:
"Despite her prominence in politics and the media in recent months with her national best-selling book tour, speeches and frequent Fox News appearances, those who claimed to be undecided or not to have heard enough to have an opinion about Sarah Palin increased from 32% to 37%.
And if you believe their answers, we've got a non-existent bridge to nowhere for sale."
We have to accept one political fact about America that, although I hate to be the one coming across as cynical, has to be recognized. We are an "American Idol society." We make decisions based on popularity. We are also a nation of bandwagon jumpers. Everyone loves a winner. But we don't root on people until we think they can win. There could be 37% of the people just waiting to be told it's cool to like Sarah Palin again.
Whether it be the finals of American Idol or the Republican primary, those who are uncertain now could be waiting until they see who has the momentum before making a decision. Unnerving as it may sound that these are the people who could be choosing our next president, the fact remains that these are the same people who may have been tainted enough by the media smear campaign against Palin to be bitten enough to be shy but not brainwashed enough into accepting the media's caricature of Palin now that they are realizing the media lied to them.
According to a Gallup poll, 21% of Americans consider themselves liberal, 35% consider themselves moderate and 40% consider themselves conservative. You could reasonably say the 21% liberal are probably part of the 38% who view Palin unfavorably. Of the remaining 17% who disapprove of her, most of them are probably moderates. But, let's say for argument sake that 7% are conservatives and 10% of them are moderates. If Palin's negatives go down to between 33% and 35% because she peels off 3% to 5% of these folks, then she's done good. If she wins over the undecideds, then she's done even better.
Let's do a lowball numbers crunch and come up with a prediction or at worst a possibility. For argument sake, we are assuming the liberal kool aid drinkers will never go to Palin. Let's assume that of the 37% undecideds, it's mainly the conservatives and moderates that can be convinced and that if there any liberals in there, they will swing to unfavorable. We're also going to assume that Sarah Palin wins the GOP primary in 2012 just so that we can consider the possibilities of her winning the general election.
Assuming that undecided liberals and Democrats break against Palin 2-1, moderates and Independent undecideds split and conservative and Republican undecideds break anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 in favor of Palin, Palin ends up with 43% favorability right before she wins the GOP primary. Of the unfavorables, about 30% of them will be conservative or Republican until all the other candidates are exhausted from the race. Given the choice of voting for Obama or Palin in the general election, they would vote for Palin regardless of what they told a pollster months earlier. This would result in her getting 53% of the vote, enough to win the presidency.
It wasn't the Reagan kool aid drinkers that got him elected in 1980. It was more the independent, moderate and Republican insider skeptics that broke for him at the last minute when confronted with the alternative of having to cast a vote for Jimmy Carter. It took the "there you go again" debate performance to convince the necessary voting block of something true Reaganites had known for years: that he was capable of doing the job.
And like Reagan's win in 1980, it will be the anti-incumbent vote that will decide her fate. As much as many love Sarah Palin, we must face the fact that it will be the "lesser of two evil" voters that could be the swing.
This would fall into line with what the think tank Center for American and Arab Studies is saying:
Palin’s route to the Republican nomination is easy to see given the Republican Convention’s “winner takes all” rule that gives the candidate with the most votes during the primary election all of the delegates from that state. Since Palin currently has the most Republican support (and undoubtedly the most enthusiastic), she is very likely to sweep enough state primaries to come to the national convention with a majority of the pledged delegates.
Winning the presidential election, however, is more problematic. Although she falls behind Obama in test match-up polls and many likely voters still are skeptical about her, her current poll numbers are not that much different than those of Ronald Reagan in 1978. Much will depend on the mood of the country, the economic condition, and how Obama is perceived by the voters. She is currently recasting the debate between D.C. outsiders who stand for limited government and D.C. insiders who want to expand government and increase taxes. Only a substantial course correction by Obama and the Democrats in Congress could nullify the political power of Palin's argument. And such a course correction does not seem to be in the works.
So, is a President Sarah Palin likely? It isn’t what conventional wisdom envisions. However, conventional wisdom didn’t see Presidents Reagan or Obama either.
Although I am not a professional PR person or image consultant, it is safe to say that Palin controls half of her destiny and God controls the other half. She can screw it up by making mistakes; but that is highly unlikely as she is way more polished now. The rest depends on the economy and the level of fear of socialism among the people.
If you asked me right now if she is going to win, I would tell you that chances are decent that she can, but I'll wait until the outcome of 2010 to put money on it. There is that one variable left: how much political capital she can earn between now and then. Knowing what I know of Palin, she will do it and I will be plunking down $500.00 on her in January in a bet with a friend of mine as soon as they put her name on the entry list.
It's a long way from Katie Couric and the resignation. But, it is also a long way from swearing in our first female president. We are at the half way point now. Palin was big in 2008, she's even bigger now and she's on her way to becoming a behemoth by 2012. Everything that I expected to happen in the evolution of Sarah Palin has happened. There is no reason for that not to continue. If history serves us as a guide, you can count on the "next Reagan" to win the same way the last Reagan did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_palin_040810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Actually, Palin is in somewhat better shape versus Obama than Reagan was at this point against Carter. In December 1978, Carter led Reagan in the Gallup poll by 57-35%. Even after he clinched the nomination, in the spring of 1980, national opinion polls showed Reagan trailing Carter by 25%. (Time, March 31, 1980) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912-1,00.html#ixzz0lPAErDI8
In fact, these early polls (flawed as they are) actually show Palin doing better against Obama than Reagan was doing against Carter. The notoriously pro-Dem PPP poll shows Obama ahead of Palin 50-43%, as of May 7-9, 2010.
The author makes number of interesting points including the bandwagan effect. the high number of undecided voters is key because these voters are PERSUADABLE. A campaign is about persuasion, and no one whom I see is a better campaigner than Sarah Palin
Ping the Palin list!
That has got to have a lot of folks on both sides of the political spectrum worried.
“The notoriously pro-Dem PPP poll shows Obama ahead of Palin 50-43%, as of May 7-9, 2010.”
Wellllll...not to mention that he always polls higher because we have the Pavlovian response to not be seen as “against the black man” in anything we say or do. I’ll bet those numbers are off by as much as 10-15%.
“That has got to have a lot of folks on both sides of the political spectrum worried.”
I know it does because they continue to attack her. It has to be frustrating to the leftist and to the Establishment GOPers like Jeb Bush and Romney. They are casting about for an alternative. Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie.
Just like the pubbie establishment was looking for an alternative to Reagan right up until he clinched the nomination. Heck. Six percent left him to vote for John Anderson. They never really got over what Reagan did until Bush 41 took over and kicked the Reaganites out. They don’t want another repeat of 1980. So they are savaging Palin 24/7.
The dimwit supports McLame after he kicked her in the ass?
If she is the best the republicrats can do, God help us.
America is begging for conservative leadership, not beanbags.
Or party hacks.
Articles I've seen this week indicate the RNC is going to change the rules to emphasize far more proportion delegate selection in 2012. This makes the route that much tougher for Palin. It will make for more of an endurance contest and increase the impact of establishment backing (i.e. -- money).
I don't think it will work, though. If she runs, she'll have a ground army that will be unreal.
Palin would make a good president, and if she doesn’t run and a Repub wins in 2012 then I think she’d make a good Secretary of the Interior.
With all the hate and ridicule directed at Palin, many people are uncomfortable declaring publicly that she’s OK. Good thing we still have secret ballots in America, I remember that the “culture” mavens were shocked at Reagan’s victory too. After all their hard work vilifying RR, they were surprised when he won. They didn’t take the secrecy of voting into consideration.
When the big media, the Arts and education all pile on the ridicule, they drive nonconformists deep underground, like those Reagan voters. I say keep it up liberals, keep slamming Sarah, and you’ll drive normal patriots deeper underground, and into the Tea Party. Their arrogance will, in the end, defeat them.
As much as I like her she is....un-electable.
Her voice alone drives me nuts. That “hopey changy” crap does not sound presidential...flame on.
Each state Central committee makes that call isn’t that right? They might be able to do it in some but not others. When some of the Candidates she has backed win governorships and Senate seats, she is going to be able to prevent them from jiggering the rules. I think it is pretty hard for a National Party to do this when they don’t have a President. Palin has not taken any cheap shots at Steele and he has shown himself pretty deferential to the Tea Party.
The GOP Establishment knows that is it cheats and the cheating deprives her of the nomination, it will adversely affect turnout and might even generate a third Party which probably means 4 more years of O. Like you , I don’t see them getting away with it. Heck. Mitt Romney couldn’t even save Bennett’s bacon in Utah at the state convention! Such a massive rule change would require a lot more organization and support than they have. And it could bite them in states where Palin does not win, but would get delegates under proportional representation rules.
Yet she is the most coveted, and attended speaker in America, something does not add up. (your opinion fails)
-—”Her voice alone drives me nuts. That “hopey changy” crap does not sound presidential...flame on.
Yet she is the most coveted, and attended speaker in America, something does not add up. (your opinion fails)”
I love that when you finally get these folks to answer the question: who is electable, then? It’s always some local Congressman, one-percenter, or Mitt Romney/Rudy Giuliani, etc.
Who?
I don’t like the sound of her voice either but I do like, almost always, what she says, and I support her. I supported Fred Thompson too but I couldn’t stand to hear him speak because of all the umms and uhhhs. Every politician I support has something about him or her I don’t like.
I did, however, thoroughly enjoy the recent vid of Christie ripping that newsgerbil a new one, what a joy to hear! It was off the cuff, totally and completely honest, no weighing of consequences, no hesitation, just balls out statesmenship ala Churchill. The young man has a great future!
The stuff I read didn't address that, but I'll look into it. I know the RNC plans to push back the first primaries (IA, NH, SC, NV) to the March timeframe.
The GOP Establishment knows that is it cheats and the cheating deprives her of the nomination, it will adversely affect turnout and might even generate a third Party which probably means 4 more years of O.<
The establishment also clearly remembers when the Reaganites took over the party. The key question is whether they will risk party suicide to keep it from happening again. My own personal opinion is that I think they will. We'll see.
If she runs it will be amazing to watch because it will be a political death struggle between the establishment and the grassroots.
I agree with this statement, except that in my view, Palin is in MUCH better shape versus Obama, than Reagan was at this point against Carter.
Carter was a bumbling, feel-good, doofus sort of idealistic liberal, but Obama is a committed, doctrinaire Marxist, who has already managed to do damage to our constitutional republican foundations that the liberals of Carter's era could only dream of.
The threat that Obama holds to the continued existence of our nation is real, and has alarmed the population so badly, that an unprecedented popular movement of opposition has sprung up, in the form of the Tea Parties, 9/12 groups, and the Oath Keepers.
Nothing like this occurred during Carter's presidency. The divisions between left and right in America are nearly on a war footing, and the animosity and anger is only just barely being contained. It's an explosive atmosphere, more akin to the tension present just prior to a civil war.
Sarah Palin has the wind of the Tea Party rebellion at her back - something that Reagan didn't have, although he did profit immensely from the public's dissatisfaction with Carter.
bookmark
At a time when virtually all vocal republicans had renounced their spines, souls and testicles in favor of progressive Political Corruptness and the demonrat way, Sarah Palin stands up and reminds them and us what an American believes.
And she does it with grace despite the withering fire laid down by both sides of the political aisle. God Bless her and her family!
You still stuck on that debunked meme? Sheesh, friend, you really need to catch up.
“As much as I like her she is....un-electable.
Her voice alone drives me nuts.”
Nation: But Can Reagan Be Elected?
In the fall of 1979, California pollster Mervin Field felt the same about Reagan as did nearly all the pros. As late as March 1980, after he clinched the nomination, he was about 25 points behind Carter. People were acknowledging that he had a chance, but it was a long shot:
“But to say that Reagan can be elected is by no means to say that he will be. On the contrary, he looks very much the underdog. Some party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: “There’s a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party’s response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years. We’re at the same stage the Whigs were. There’s no choice.”
Reagan has a history of committing rhetorical blunders that drive away voters. His quest in 1976 was damaged when he suggested vaguely, without proper research and consideration, that $90 billion in federal programs should be turned back to the states. He then spent months explaining that the affected programs would not be eliminated, only transferred. As Governor, Reagan was outraged by student unrest and once proclaimed: “The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity.”
Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan’s relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: “We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912-4,00.html#ixzz0o1PhxxLs
Reagan was seen as an “amiable dunce”, “too old”, “too ill informed and too simplistic” and he was a dangerous lunatic who couldn’t wait to start a nuclear war with the Russians. And he was 25 points behind just seven months before the election. From that vantage point, he looked so completely unelectable.
BTW, you may not like her voice, and you may not like “hopey changey.” That is a matter of taste. I doubt that you want to have socialism served for the next 6 years with Obama’s soothing baritone.
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.