Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Careful what you wish for, progressives [Nutroots for Palin in straw poll, think she's weak]
Salon ^ | July 27, 2010 | Ned Resnikoff

Posted on 07/27/2010 12:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Sarah Palin may be more unpopular than ever before, but if she chooses to run for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race, she can at least count on bipartisan support. In fact, according to a straw poll at this year’s Netroots Nation -- the massive progressive bacchanal held last weekend in Las Vegas -- a substantial plurality of conference attendees wants the half-term Alaskan governor to be President Obama’s general election opponent.

It’s not hard to figure out why: Even Obama’s harshest critics on the left almost unanimously favor him against any possible Republican challenger, and Palin’s candidacy would make 2012 look less like an election than a massacre. It’s not just Obama who would profit, either; his opponent would be such a drag on down-ticket Republican candidates that one could say she represents the Democratic Party’s best hope of undoing the damage they’re sure to incur this November.

Palin allies such as Rush Limbaugh often claim that liberals vilify Palin because they’re afraid of her, but there’s really no way to reconcile that assertion with the outcome of the N.N. straw poll. If anything, the numbers tell us, liberals aren't afraid enough.

I don’t mean to suggest that liberals underestimate Palin’s electoral fortunes; they are, truly, quite grim. The true danger is not that Palin would ever seize the White House, but rather what her nomination would mean for political discourse and basic stability in this country.

A democracy, after all, must be founded on broad consensus regarding certain social norms. That does not mean there is no room for disagreement over policy and philosophy within that broad framework -- indeed, that is an obvious feature, not a bug, of representative democracy -- but that these disagreements, no matter how fervent and profound they may become, must take place between parties that share a mutual commitment to the liberal democratic system (as in the system stemming from the philosophical tradition of classical liberalism, not modern political liberalism).

To try to enforce this sort of ideological commitment through law would, paradoxically, undermine liberal democracy itself, which is why enforcement is instead left to social taboo and the electoral process itself. So candidates for office who hold distinctly illiberal, anti-democratic views -- such as those who, for example, call for armed overthrow of their government, or the assassination of their political opponents -- are expected to be voted into unemployment, thereby providing a strong incentive for career politicians to all behave more or less like reasonable adults, regardless of their differences.

This is the sort of ideal theory that’s never functioned perfectly, but recently it’s been particularly bad. The tendency of the Republican Party under President Bush (and sadly, more recently, the DNC under Obama) to equate reasonable criticism of the administration’s war effort with treason pales in comparison with the remarks of Sharron Angle, Republican nominee from Nevada in this cycle’s most prominent Senate race: This is a woman who was nominated by a major party to run for the upper chamber of Congress despite having winked heavily and repeatedly at the possibility of armed insurrection and the assassination of her opponent.

Of course, if Angle loses (and she probably will), no one thinks she’s going to follow through on her violent rhetoric. That’s not really the point; rather, the true fear here is that someone else might. When veiled incitements to violence become mainstream, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of unhinged loners will attempt to follow through on them. There is, after all, a reason why right-wing violence trended upward after Obama’s election.

But if you think it’s bad now, wait until you see what happens if the plurality of N.N. attendees see their wish granted. Palin has already demonstrated a disturbing willingness to frame even minor political squabbles in terms of "tyranny" versus "liberty," and to make her a major party’s presidential candidate would only do more to throw the spotlight on that sort of incitement. Perhaps, as Kevin Drum prays, the GOP would then "go down to such an epic defeat that they finally get some sense knocked into them." But in the meantime, we would be facing a long, protracted campaign in which both a major political party and the mainstream press would treat violently anti-democratic positions as existing within the confines of reasonable political discourse. We’ve already had quite a bit of that over the past few years; accommodating and encouraging it could potentially make things much, much worse.

******

Ned Resnikoff is a blogger and NYU student. He lives in New York City.


TOPICS: Issues; Parties; Polls; State and Local
KEYWORDS: 2012; democrats; netroots; nutroots; obama; palin; polls; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
So now 20 year olds have the expertise to lecture to us? I see this column as both denial and whistling past the graveyard. Governor Palin would have a built-in base of perhaps 50-80 million voters before she even declared. What do you think?
1 posted on 07/27/2010 12:15:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Reminds me of republicans who were begging for Obama to win, even voted for him in the primary because they thought he would be the easiest to beat..how did that work out..yeah exactly my point.


2 posted on 07/27/2010 12:17:23 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I will pray that the Nutroots will get their wish. Palin will eat these fools alive.


3 posted on 07/27/2010 12:19:58 PM PDT by Gator113 (God save the Republic.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Brices Crossroads; Virginia Ridgerunner

Ping


4 posted on 07/27/2010 12:24:38 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Please consider the logging and timber industries when printing this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Independents will not vote for Obama again, at least very few anyway. Little of what brought out the youth and minority vote for Obama in such massive numbers will still be applicable. We will have already had the first black candidate, Obama isn’t hip anymore in any way, he has shown himself to be a massive failure with the economy, and he has really blown it in a spectacular way with the BP spill. Finally, he has not brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama will get his arse handed to him by Palin.


5 posted on 07/27/2010 12:27:56 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (In the White House the mighty White House the Liar sleeps tonight.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A little walk down memory lane: Thinking that Ronald Reagan was a ticket to a second term, Jimmy Carter felt sadness in 1979 that Reagan had little chance to be the Republican nominee, according to U.S. News & World Report:
White House political strategists have concluded—regretfully—that Ronald Reagan is fading and will have little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Why the regrets? Because Carter's aides are convinced that the conservative, 68-year-old former California governor is an easy target. (April 2, 1979)
Historic Whispers: Ronald Reagan Had Little Chance of Winning the Primary
6 posted on 07/27/2010 12:31:22 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What I think is that for all the love for Palin, I’m looking for actual evidence that she can win a presidential race.

I’m not even sure what kind of evidence there CAN be at this point. Old articles that show someone thought Reagan would lose doesn’t cut it—one can find such articles about every presidential candidate who ever ran.

So what do people see as indicators that she can win—I don’t mean just that one LIKES her, but that she can win?


7 posted on 07/27/2010 12:34:57 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Look at it this way: About 60% of Americans call themselves conservative vs. 20% liberal in polls. Do you really think that the economy will heal by 2012? Many facets of ObamaCare and FinReg will kick in between now and then. Whoever gets the GOP nomination will be in the catbird seat.


8 posted on 07/27/2010 12:50:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Soapbox & Ballot Box or Ammo Box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
More so than Dole-McCain-Romney-Huckabee-Gengrich.

Do you have any suggestions?

9 posted on 07/27/2010 12:54:26 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
So what do people see as indicators that she can win—I don’t mean just that one LIKES her, but that she can win?

More so than Dole-McCain-Romney-Huckabee-Gengrich.

Do you have any suggestions?

10 posted on 07/27/2010 12:54:48 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cicero2k
More so than Dole-McCain-Romney-Huckabee-Gengrich.

That's not an answer to my question, though I understand your point.

Do you have any suggestions?

I'm looking for an answer to this question, I don't have any answers--I support her because she's the only one possibly running who I could vote for, period. But I am looking for evidence she can win--just because I support her doesn't mean I believe she can win.

It's alarming to me that people can't answer this question (not just you). I'm not a Superfan the way some are, she's basically a fallback choice for me. I hear a lot of support, but see little evidence she can win.

11 posted on 07/27/2010 12:58:42 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I get what you’re seeing, but I recall much of the same reasoning going on before Clinton and Obama won, too—”too liberal!”

How many times have we been sure there was no way libs would win?

Again, you’re talking about an abstract theory—not saying you’re wrong, but what indicators are there that Palin can win. If it’s just that anyone can win against Obama, I fear Romney will get the “acceptable” vote like Dole and McCain, and I have my own theories as to why Romney can’t win.


12 posted on 07/27/2010 1:01:28 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

“So what do people see as indicators that she can win—I don’t mean just that one LIKES her, but that she can win?”

She has consistently scored high unfavorables. Not good.

On another forum a smart guy opined that he had no doubt she could get the GOP nomination, but was equally sure she would not win the general.


13 posted on 07/27/2010 1:04:51 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
So what do people see as indicators that she can win—I don’t mean just that one LIKES her, but that she can win?

Simple---just look at the sheer size of the crowds she draws EVERYWHERE she goes...even out in the desert on a blustery day.


14 posted on 07/27/2010 1:08:28 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Governor Romney is Senators Dole and McCain without the military “hero” aspect and with the stumbling block of his religion added in. We will truly get shellacked with him as the standard-bearer. Gov. Jindahl’s too young and may have nbc issues, Gov. Barbour is too Southern and overweight (ditto Huckabee) and people like DeMint, Ryan, Thune and etc. are relative unknowns in the public eye. Who, besides Governor Palin, is there, really? She's been doing the hard work of “refudiating” Obama’s nonsense and getting Republicans elected.
15 posted on 07/27/2010 1:09:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Soapbox & Ballot Box or Ammo Box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I don’t see drawing crowds as evidence she can win a national election.


16 posted on 07/27/2010 1:12:13 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I'm looking for an answer to this question, I don't have any answers--I support her because she's the only one possibly running who I could vote for, period. But I am looking for evidence she can win--just because I support her doesn't mean I believe she can win.

Here's the way I look at it. Right now, I believe she's the singular person on the conservative side (perhaps more than anyone else right now) that is presenting a genuine challenge and alternative to Obama. She's done something that I didn't think was possible from anyone even related to the GOP and that's use the Internet (specifically social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter) to her advantage and really to the conservative cause's advantage. Yes, others on the right have done this and we can look no further than FR as evidence of that. But I don't think that's something to completely discount. John McCain from what I remember had mentioned that he didn't know how to use the internet himself and his running mate seems to have been the complete opposite, in that aspect and others.

Further, I don't think that any of the other candidates rumored to be in the ring are setting the world on fire. Palin might still be the worst candidate, except for all the others (to paraphrase Churchill). But I'm not going to hitch my wagon to anyone else...yet.

17 posted on 07/27/2010 1:14:57 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Please consider the logging and timber industries when printing this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

1. She was Alaska’s governor and has conservative recored.
2. She was a mayor of an Alaskan town and has a conservative record.
3. She cleaned Biden’s clock in the vice presidential debate.
4. She’s the only conservative leader with national recognition.
5. She’s the only conservative leader who has mastered the sound bite game the Demrats play so well.
6. She’s the only conservative leader who explains her positions and the Constitution in clear and terse English.
7. She’s the only avowed Conservative leader whose position I can predict on any given issue.
8. It is undeniable that Juan McBipartisan has embraced conservative positions since Palin’s endorsement.

I know it’s chic to pretend this woman just dropped into the world when McCain picked her her for VEEP. But she had a recorded political life long before that.


18 posted on 07/27/2010 1:18:51 PM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

Great post, and you’ve summed up my feelings, too. I think it’s great that she’s far more nimble than any other GOP candidate and has led the way for others to use 21st-century communications technology. Which is why some of her jaw-droppingly bad TV appearances shock the heck out of me.

But your last comment says it all. She’s all I’ve got.


19 posted on 07/27/2010 1:21:05 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Well then, considering that ALL of these people coming out to see her are voters, I don't know what else to tell you since you are demanding an abstract rather than accepting something far more concrete like crowd enthusiasm and size.

Just look at Obama's crowds from 2008...that was clear evidence of his National "electability" (a word I detest!).

So what other Republican besides Palin can generate the same level of intensity in their respective voting bases?

20 posted on 07/27/2010 1:22:07 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Did you see Obama’s drawing crowd as an indication that he could win an national election?


21 posted on 07/27/2010 1:22:33 PM PDT by LTC.Ret (I know I am a racist, but . . . . I didn't spend 31 years in the Army to see my USA turn socialist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LTC.Ret
BINGO!
22 posted on 07/27/2010 1:25:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Soapbox & Ballot Box or Ammo Box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I have to disagree with you on this, as I think evidence could be made that large crowds were fairly indicative of current occupant of the White House’s popularity in ‘08.


23 posted on 07/27/2010 1:26:54 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Please consider the logging and timber industries when printing this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Well then, considering that ALL of these people coming out to see her are voters

They are? Where's the evidence of that?

I'm sure most of them are, but again, it doesn't impress me--they don't indicate votes in any meaningful way. These are partisan crowds, the same with the Obama crowds, and that's a nice TV visual, but I don't see where that works as an indicator of voting success. Where were all those voters on election day? (I guess they were enthusiastic enough to travel long distances and/or stand outside for hours to see her, but they couldn't be bothered to vote for her becauser she was only VP nominee?)

Seeing how Romney and others seem to always win the polls at this point, the "who else is there?" isn't any more "concrete" than anything else. I'm not looking for unassailable proof, just indicators, and old pictures of big crowds and "Who else is there?' don't fill me with enthusiam.

24 posted on 07/27/2010 1:27:34 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

When Mitt pays for a poll, he expects to win it, wouldn’t you?


25 posted on 07/27/2010 1:39:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Soapbox & Ballot Box or Ammo Box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin may be more unpopular than ever before . . .

According to whom?? The leftists she TERRIFIES!!?????

26 posted on 07/27/2010 1:41:59 PM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
When Mitt pays for a poll, he expects to win it, wouldn’t you?

LOL! Ugh, that's depressing.

Unfortunately, these polls add to the stupid "well, he's a viable candidate" crap that gave us McCain.

27 posted on 07/27/2010 1:43:32 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dools007

Great list!

Plus she is out there punching back against the Kenyan and the state run media every chance she gets.


28 posted on 07/27/2010 1:56:16 PM PDT by mickey finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
To: Darkwolf377
1. She was Alaska’s governor and has conservative recored.
2. She was a mayor of an Alaskan town and has a conservative record.
3. She cleaned Biden’s clock in the vice presidential debate.
4. She’s the only conservative leader with national recognition.
5. She’s the only conservative leader who has mastered the sound bite game the Demrats play so well.
6. She’s the only conservative leader who explains her positions and the Constitution in clear and terse English.
7. She’s the only avowed Conservative leader whose position I can predict on any given issue.
8. It is undeniable that Juan McBipartisan has embraced conservative positions since Palin’s endorsement.
I know it’s chic to pretend this woman just dropped into the world when McCain picked her her for VEEP. But she had a recorded political life long before that.

Not a bad answer, is it?

29 posted on 07/27/2010 2:21:55 PM PDT by txnuke (Obama votes "PRES__ENT" because he has no ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: txnuke
Not a bad answer, is it?

Nothing on that addresses why you think she CAN win, only why you WANT her to win. And frankly, not only am I not impressed by much of her record (some of it, yes, very impressed), but if she were a dem most of us would be dismissing much of her record.

30 posted on 07/27/2010 2:53:51 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dools007

I agree with all but 3. I don’t believe that at all. She was a bumbling fool....couldn’t get the name correct. Otherwise your points are good.


31 posted on 07/27/2010 3:11:02 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner; Darkwolf377

Here’s a thread on the 60,000 Sarah got in FL.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2087434/posts


32 posted on 07/27/2010 3:54:42 PM PDT by Clyde5445 (Gov. Sarah Palin: :"You have to sacrifice to win. That's my philosophy in 6 words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I thought her line “tell me ain’t so Joe” eclipsed that minor stutter. Given all the public speaking she does I’m amazed she makes so few mistakes.


33 posted on 07/27/2010 4:53:00 PM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. When it comes to Sarah Palin and The Left. Watch what they DO not what they SAY. They will tell us who they truly fear by their ACTIONS. Not their WORDS.


34 posted on 07/27/2010 7:57:32 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (The important thing to remember is that Obama reads newspapers and isn't that whats important?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Nothing satisfies you. "Some of it, very impressed."

Give us your best answer.

35 posted on 07/28/2010 4:59:27 AM PDT by txnuke (Obama votes "PRES__ENT" because he has no ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: txnuke
Nothing satisfies you. "Some of it, very impressed." Give us your best answer.

Your post makes no sense--you say nothing satisfies me, then follow that with a quote from me saying I'm very impressed with something.

36 posted on 07/28/2010 10:15:38 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Nothing on that addresses why you think she CAN win, only why you WANT her to win.

Now why don't you tell us why she can't win?
You are the one that thinks she can't win , no?
Heck, even PPP, a Democratic Party polling outfit that has been known to be rabidly anti-Palin came out with their poll this month, which showed Palin is running neck and neck with 0bama. And 0bama keeps hitting new lows every month. Palin on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up.:
PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553190/posts

37 posted on 07/28/2010 11:23:40 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin may be more unpopular than ever before,

Another idiotic, wet behind the ears member of the notorious journoLIST cabal, spews out coordinated, loony left talking points. So what's new?
Reality:
PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553190/posts

July 17, 2010
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

38 posted on 07/28/2010 11:33:30 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Now why don't you tell us why she can't win? You are the one that thinks she can't win , no?

My position is clearly posted already, and I won't be drawn into a pointless attempt to sidetrack what is a simple question so many Palin fan's cannot answer--odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way.

If this poll next shows Palin behind, will you be pointing people to it as evidence?

39 posted on 07/28/2010 12:43:47 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
My position is clearly posted already

So is my position. Your position is not particularly relevant.

I won't be drawn into a pointless attempt to sidetrack what is a simple question so many Palin fan's cannot answer”

In other words, you have no anwesr to my question, and instead, insist on your “right” to troll Palin threads with impunity.

odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “

Odd how you totally avoided the question, and instead veer off on a tangent with yet another mindless attack on those who back Palin.

If this poll next shows Palin behind, will you be pointing people to it as evidence?”

Ummmmm... I made it clear in my post that PPP is a Democratic Party, anti-Palin outfit. More reason to expect their polls to be biased against Palin. Which is why even PPP, having Palin neck and neck with 0bama is pretty remarkable.
Plus Gallup just came out with their own poll which has Palin ahead of anyone else in favourability ratings amongst Republicans:
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

40 posted on 07/28/2010 1:17:59 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
So is my position. Your position is not particularly relevant.

And yet you asked me to state my position: "Now why don't you tell us why she can't win?"

Didn't really think that through, did ya? ;)

In other words, you have no anwesr to my question, and instead, insist on your “right” to troll Palin threads with impunity.

The Superfan tactic of labelling anyone who doesn't worship Palin a "troll" is not only tiring but it reveals an emotional attachment that is no better than Obama worship.

I support Palin and asked for non-emotion-based facts that indicate Palin can win, and not why people like her, but why they believe she can win.

Asking why people think a candidate can win is trolling to you. Wow.

Odd how you totally avoided the question,

LOL From a guy who can't answer a simple question except by posting a poll he then says can't be trusted.

and instead veer off on a tangent with yet another mindless attack on those who back Palin.

Where did I do that--when I asked "why do you back Palin?" If you think that's a "mindless attack" you need to toughen up, kid.

The whiney victim pose that appears whenever someone asks for FACTS and information about whether or not we can defeat Obama with a candidate is so damned tired and shows a lack of intellectual vigor and honesty, and an excess of emotional attachment where clear thinking is required.

Ummmmm... I made it clear in my post that PPP is a Democratic Party, anti-Palin outfit. More reason to expect their polls to be biased against Palin. Which is why even PPP, having Palin neck and neck with 0bama is pretty remarkable.

This after you just accused me of dodging a question.

Is this poll reliable or not, yes or no?

Plus Gallup just came out with their own poll which has Palin ahead of anyone else in favourability ratings amongst Republicans: Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].

That's nice. So just to be clear, Gallup and PPP polls are reliable in terms of tracking Palin's popularity according to you. OK, I will take that as your long-delayed answer to my very simple, very relevant question as to indicators Palin can win. Thanks.

41 posted on 07/28/2010 1:44:42 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
And yet you asked me to state my position: “Now why don't you tell us why she can't win

Nope.
You kept shrilly trolling this thread, demanding to be told why Sarah can win in 2012, and simply refused to accept every reasonable answer that was given to you, so I turned your things round, and demanded that YOU tell us why she cannot win.
Seems fair and reasonable to me.
Naturally, you dodged the question completely, and turned round and attacked Plain supporters.
Typical.

The Superfan tactic of labelling anyone who doesn't worship Palin a “troll” is not only tiring but it reveals an emotional attachment that is no better than Obama worship”

The tactic, whereby a certain deranged clique here on FR, constantly, and rabidly appear on every single Palin thread to spew out the same old discredited garbage over and over again, borders on insanity.
People like that need to get medical treatment and fast.

42 posted on 07/28/2010 2:01:23 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

That was funny. :)


43 posted on 07/28/2010 2:18:25 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
LOL From a guy who can't answer a simple question except by posting a poll he then says can't be trusted”

That is a heck of a lot better than you did. You totally dodged my question, and veered off on a tangent with a made up distraction.
And..Umm..the other poll I posted said Sarah Palin has a much higher favorability rating than any other potential GOP candidate for 2012:
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

Asking why people think a candidate can win is trolling to you. Wow”

Refusing to accept all perfectly reasonable answers given to your question, and ridiculing any answers given to you, only for you to to come back and continue to make the same demands, IS trolling.

Where did I do that”

Right here:
“odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “

“—when I asked “why do you back Palin?” If you think that's a “mindless attack” you need to toughen up, kid”

You demanded to know why Plain can win in 2012, and refused to accept all answers given to you. This is your post # 7: "What I think is that for all the love for Palin, I’m looking for actual evidence that she can win a presidential race" I asked you to tell us why Palin cannot win in 2012. I am yet to hear even one answer from you, let alone a good one. Yet you have continued to ridicule every attempt at answering your question, even while rfeusing to make any attempt to answer question asked you. Figures.

The whiney victim pose that appears whenever someone asks for FACTS and information about whether or not we can defeat Obama with a candidate is so damned tired and shows a lack of intellectual vigor and honesty, and an excess of emotional attachment where clear thinking is required.”

Plenty of posters in this thread have given you good, very pertinent facts, only for you to dismiss them out of hand. Meanwhile, you are yet to supply even one fact or answer any questions posed to you. You are the one with the emotional problem here.

This after you just accused me of dodging a question.”

You are STILL dodging the question. As a matter of fact, you are yet to answer any question posed to you at all.

Is this poll reliable or not, yes or no?”

If anything, there is a pretty good chance chance that this poll is biased AGAINST Sarah Plain, not for her. So if anything, Sarah Plain is probably doing better than in this poll.
Plus I backed it up with the Gallup poll, which has Sarah Plain solidly ahead of any other GOP candidate for 2012, in favourability amongst Republicans.

So just to be clear, Gallup and PPP polls are reliable in terms of tracking Palin’s popularity according to you”

Just to be clear, PPP is a Democratic Party supporting outfit (they don't even make that a secret do they?). Their polls will if anything, more likely to tilt AGAINST Sarah Palin.
Get it?

44 posted on 07/28/2010 2:37:18 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
That is a heck of a lot better than you did. You totally dodged my question, and veered off on a tangent with a made up distraction.

All of your postings to me are tangents, and attempts to squirm out of answering a very simple, very pertinent question.

You're so emotional about a simple, important question that should be so easy to answer. And when people ask for evidence that has meaning, you call them trolls.

So why do you keep responding to this "troll" instead of offering the tons of evidence you must have that will answer my very simple question?

Why is that? And..Umm..the other poll I posted said Sarah Palin has a much higher favorability rating than any other potential GOP candidate for 2012: Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

Got it the first time. Doesn't impress me anymore than it ever has--you can't seem to respond to the question. I have no doubts about Palin's popularity with Republicans, but this isn't an election against Republicans only, it's also going to be against Obama.

Why can't you understand that?

Refusing to accept all perfectly reasonable answers given to your question, and ridiculing any answers given to you, only for you to to come back and continue to make the same demands, IS trolling.

No, to you not thinking as you do is trolling.

Sorry, but I don't simply take anyone's answers as "proof". Just because YOU think that listing well-known background factoids and polls which are meaningless this far out are indicators of a candidate's potential for success are evidence, I don't have to. Your definition of trolling is that someone has higher standards than old photos of crowds.

“Where did I do that” Right here: “odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “

LOL THAT's your big evidence of my bashing people? That I pointed out that people are always quoting polls when they're favorable to their view, and trashing them when they're not? WOW how awful! LOL!

You really need to stop with the victim posing.

You demanded to know

That's the second time you've used this silly characterization of my simple question as my DEMANDING anything. I asked a question--I demand nothing of anyone. Man, stop with the boohoo stuff and stick to the actual points.

,i> why Plain can win in 2012, and refused to accept all answers given to you.

Because the answers don't meet my standard. Sorry if that offends your tender sensibilities, but tough.

This is your post # 7: "What I think is that for all the love for Palin, I’m looking for actual evidence that she can win a presidential race"

Wow, what a trolling question.

I asked you to tell us why Palin cannot win in 2012. I am yet to hear even one answer from you, let alone a good one.

Because you are attempting to derail my simple request for answers of her POSITIVES. YOU are the one who wants to bring up negative comments about her, while I want to read good, solid information and reasons.

So--which of us is the real troll?

Yet you have continued to ridicule every attempt at answering your question, even while rfeusing to make any attempt to answer question asked you. Figures.

Sorry, I won't fall for your silly tactic of derailing my request for positives about Palin. Deal, and stop whining about "ridicule" when that's all you've brought to this thread.

Plenty of posters in this thread have given you good, very pertinent facts, only for you to dismiss them out of hand.

Because they are not good or pertinent in my view. I asked the question, and I get to decide for myself what I find satisfying. Sorry if my not having your low standards offends you so.

Meanwhile, you are yet to supply even one fact or answer any questions posed to you. You are the one with the emotional problem here.

Yet you keep repeating this same point over and over and over again.

And again--sorry, I won't stop asking for positives about Palin's chances and let you turn this into yet another re-iteration of the barriers in Palin's way because you're afraid of serious debate and want another excuse for more boo-hooing and whining and posing.

You are STILL dodging the question. As a matter of fact, you are yet to answer any question posed to you at all.

(Looking at all my answers.) O...kay...

If anything, there is a pretty good chance chance that this poll is biased AGAINST Sarah Plain, not for her.

So you keep quoting as "proof" a biased poll.

And then you ask over and over why I don't trust this as evidence.

So if anything, Sarah Plain is probably doing better than in this poll. Plus I backed it up with the Gallup poll, which has Sarah Plain solidly ahead of any other GOP candidate for 2012, in favourability amongst Republicans.

In other words, you're doing exactly what I said you were doing--quoting polls when they support your view, and dismissing them when they don't.

Any poll that is a bad/biased poll is ALWAYS bad or biased. If this poll is rigged as you say, then gee, wouldn't this result be the perfect one for them to later point to as "proof" of their not being biased--"Hey, look here, she was ahead in our poll, so you can't say we're biased"? And if she falls in this poll, are you going to point to it as suddenly NOT something to look to for evidence?

Just to be clear, PPP is a Democratic Party supporting outfit (they don't even make that a secret do they?). Their polls will if anything, more likely to tilt AGAINST Sarah Palin. Get it?

You most definitely do NOT get it.

But seeing as you keep demanding for reasons why Palin might not win, and are pointing to the PPP poll as evidence of her chances, you're certainly helping out the trolls you supposedly are so, so worried about. ;)

45 posted on 07/28/2010 3:10:01 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
All of your postings to me are tangents, and attempts to squirm out of answering a very simple, very pertinent question

Every single post of yours to every single person in this thread is a troll post, calculated to push an anti-Palin agenda, under the guise of "obtaining facts", which have been repeatedly supplied to you.
Further, your “simple” question has been more than adequately answered over and over again, only for you to come back and demand an answer to the very same question that has been answered repeatedly.
First class trolling if ever I saw one.

46 posted on 07/28/2010 3:16:57 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
So why do you keep responding to this “troll” instead of offering the tons of evidence you must have that will answer my very simple question

Disinformation attempts by determined, paid trolls on FR need to be quashed, no matter where they come from. And like I kep saying, your so-called “simple question” has been repeatedly answered already, by plenty of posters in this thread.

Doesn't impress me anymore than it ever has—”

Like I said before, you are not looking for any answers at all.
Your purpose here is to troll Sarah Palin threads with an anti-Palin agenda, while ostensibly appearing to be looking fr “facts”. The facts have been repeatedly suplied to you, but you..you don't want to facts do ya?

I have no doubts about Palin’s popularity with Republicans, but this isn't an election against Republicans only, it's also going to be against Obama.”

You have already been given Sarah Palin’s head to head polls aginwst 0bamna, where she is running neck and neck with the Kenyan Marxist..and..the poll was even from an anti-Palin, pro-Democratic Party outfit.

Sorry, but I don't simply take anyone’s answers as “proof”.”

FACT: You don't really want any answers do you?
Your purpose in this thread is to troll and push an anti-Palin agenda isn't it?

Just because YOU think that listing well-known background factoids and polls which are meaningless this far out are indicators of a candidate's potential for success are evidence, I don't have to”

If solid very pertinent facts, and polls from even the opposition that show Sarah Palin with very solid chances in 2012 are “meaningless”, pray tell us, what is meaningful then?
We are talking about a guy here (YOU), who is yet to present even ONE FACT, to support his idiotic contention that Sarah Palin is not a viable candidate for 212, despite repeated attempts from me for you to come up with ANYTHING. And this same guy is dismissing solid facts an evidence out of hand with nothing to back it up?
Will you excuse me while I laugh..at you?

47 posted on 07/28/2010 3:38:32 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
FACT: You don't really want any answers do you?

This makes as much sense as anything else you've posted.

48 posted on 07/28/2010 4:03:20 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
We are talking about a guy here (YOU), who is yet to present even ONE FACT, to support his idiotic contention that Sarah Palin is not a viable candidate for 212

When did I say that?

49 posted on 07/28/2010 4:10:02 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
That's the second time you've used this silly characterization of my simple question as my DEMANDING anything. I asked a question—I demand nothing of anyone”

You question has been repeatedly answered, with excellent, cogent, very pertinent answers, by several posters in this thread, including me. . That hasn't stopped you from dismissing every answer out of hand(with no valid reason given from you), and coming right back to demand answers to your already answered questions, and to continue trolling anyways.

Because you are attempting to derail my simple request for answers of her POSITIVES”

Now we get to the crux of the matter don't we?
Positives on Sarah Palin in a thread that you are trolling in, are “derailing”? Since when? You are one sick puppy.
Listen, you did NOT start this thread. You don't own this thread. You came into the thread, and attempted to hijack the thread with your anti-Palin trolling.
If anyone is derailing the thread, its you.

YOU are the one who wants to bring up negative comments about her, while I want to read good, solid information and reasons”

You may be boss in your own house, clown face. Here on FR, you are just another laughably inept troll. If you demand answers from other posters, you darn well be prepared to answer when they throw your questions right back at ya.

“So—which of us is the real troll?”

You need to be told that too?
Go through the thread again, and see who the troll is on this thread.

Sorry, I won't fall for your silly tactic of derailing my request for positives about Palin. “

You have reportedly been given the positives. I have even supplied you with polls from the opposition poling outfit, and you still refuse to face reality and continue with your insane anti-Palin trolling anyways.

“Because they are not good or pertinent in my view. “

When everyone else thinks they are very pertinent, and the sole troll with an anti-Palinn agenda continues to insist that clearly pertinent points and facts, are not pertinent, guess who needs to go see a shrink here?

I asked the question, and I get to decide for myself what I find satisfying.”

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Sorry if my not having your low standards offends you so.”

Its truer t o say, you have ZERO standards. Your business here is to push the “Sarah Palin cannot win in 212” meme, while ridiculdimng every and any proof that Freepers bring up that proves the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

So you keep quoting as “proof” a biased poll”

If an outfit like say, Daily Kos (which has even had to admit their polls are biased for the Democrats) publishes a poll, in which say Blanche Lincoln(D) is losing in AR US Senate race, we know for sure that Blanche Lincoln is losing big, because we know Kos has already tilted their polls for the Democrat, and Lincoln is still down even after the numbers have been cooked.
One can learn plenty even from a biased poll, depending on what party the poll is baised for, and what party they are against, and what other similar polls say.

In other words, you're doing exactly what I said you were doing—quoting polls when they support your view, and dismissing them when they don't”

I quoted two polls. BOTH were very favorable to Sarah Palin, so which poll you babbling about again?

Any poll that is a bad/biased poll is ALWAYS bad or biased”

If I tell ya, I added 10 points to the numbers of the Democrat in a particular poll, one can use that to deduce what the real numbers are like.
Back in January, when Daily Kos came out with polls that had Martha Coakley winning in MA, even while the other pollsters had Scott Brown winning solidly, we were able to deduce by how much Kos was cooking his numbers.

50 posted on 07/28/2010 4:14:19 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson