Zogby on 2012: Palin leads among Republicans, Romney leads among all voters
posted at 4:30 pm on November 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Check that: Romney barely leads among all voters, within the margin of error. But here’s evidence, in case more was needed, of how sharply conservatives’ view of the ‘Cuda diverges from America’s. Among Republicans, it’s Palin 24.4, Mitt 18.1, Jindal 15.6; among everyone, Mitt 13.7, Palin 13.4, Jindal 12.5.
What happened to Huck, who was in the thick of things when Gallup recently asked a similar question? Palin happened to Huck:
Among Republicans, she gets the support of 30% of Born-Again Christians, 32% of weekly churchgoers, 34% of National Rifle Association members, 28% of current gun owners and 29% of self-identified conservatives. More GOP support comes from 32% of blue collar workers, 30% who shop weekly at Wal-Mart, 28% of NASCAR fans and 25% of both those with children under 17 and those with family members in the military…
Palin looks to be stealing Huckabee’s thunder among Republican religious conservatives and working class voters. Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and his highest GOP totals still come from Born-Again Christians (15%) and weekly churchgoers (18%), but those numbers are about half of those drawn by Palin. Despite his populist economic message, he wins only 10% of blue collar Republicans.
There’s your explanation for why he’s been taking shots at her lately, in case it wasn’t already clear. Interesting to see Jindal’s numbers so high, though, given how comparatively low his profile is and how poorly he fared in the Gallup poll. As another young rock-star “future of the party” governor, I wonder if he isn’t peeling votes away from Palin among people who’ve soured on her for whatever reason. Exit invitation: Go ahead and tell me that the only reason she polls so much lower among all voters is because Democrats fear her. You know you want to.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 Next »
Pop: Your dismissive attitude towards ’social cons’ does not help your case. I will note that I have studied Economics, I do read the Von Mises Institute, and I am also a social conservative, and I do support Governor Palin.
From what I’ve seen, your arguments for Gov. Palin’s economic illiteracy stem from your refusal (not inability) to answer a question regarding newspapers, and a speech she gave on behalf of Sen. McCain, in which she was known not to necessarily be giving her own views.
You argue that her refusal to answer the newspaper question must have only one interpretation, that which you put to it. I (and many others, including Gov. Palin herself) disagree with you. She was not then and is not now required to give that information to anyone. We must respect that decision, and it would behoove you to question whether there are any other reasons that she might not want to discuss the issue.
As for the speech, you argue that it shows a lack of character to not give your own opinions on a subject. When speaking for yourself, I agree. However, she was not at that point. As someone who comes from a military family and has many ties to the military, you never buck the chain of command in a situation like that. I see nothing ethically wrong with her speech. Now, it very well may be that she does in fact represent those stances that she spoke of. However, the onus is on you to prove that she did, on her own belief as well as on behalf of Senator McCain’s campaign.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM
er, not your refusal, but her refusal. Sorry about that.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:31 AM
That is purely based on the college or degree program and is not universal. Taking a course in Keynesian economics is as bad as taking no course at all.
Well I was trying to be nice and not have to mention Nixon’s interventionist policies that caused the 70’s stagflation.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Pop: I perfectly agree on the Keynesian economics issue. What an awful economic theory. However, I’ll note that those are generally advanced economic courses. Every basic Economics course I have taken (and yes, I’ve taken more than one) was classical liberal Economics. This would lead me to believe that those who have taken only a basic course would be much more likely to have (in our view) ‘correct’ economic views than someone who, say, majors in Economics.
And there is no reason to be ‘nice’ when speaking of historical record. Either something is or is not. I was thinking, though, of going back to, say, the first few Presidents, rather than the last few Presidents.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:45 AM
What facts are not accurate? What cruel statement on Joey?
That has nothing to do with anything. If she was the most qualified GOP candidate, she had a relevant degree in economics, relevant private sector experience, did not support Cap and Trade policies and did not want government to regulate corporate greed I would have no problem with her. But she doesn’t.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Lie, rinse, lather, repeat.
chunderroad on December 1, 2008 at 12:50 AM
What is so difficult about being a VP candidate and a sitting governor is that you are apparently expected from the get-go to know everything about everything on the national stage and not be given any sort of learning curve or time by the MSM to be brought up to speed. Perhaps this is the reason that Governors in recent American history have not been chosen as VP candidates. Before Sarah the last one was Spiro Agnew in 1968. I know life is unfair, but if the McCain campaign had done a better job at the outset to explain why Sarah had to be brought up to speed (to flesh out the details on the various issues and the current administration’s take on them)I think that the ‘fairness’ and broad-mindedness of the American people not possessing a left-wing agenda would have allowed Sarah to go virtually unjudged by them as she seized the opportunity to become conversant with the ‘briefing books’. Of course the MSM would have still taken their potshots but a general consensus could have developed that she deserved at least a couple of weeks to be brought up to speed if again the McCain campaign had been out front and center on the issue, instead of trying to bury it or hope it would go away over time.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Pop: May I ask why you feel that a Presidential candidate must have a degree in Economics? As pointed out, very few of our Presidents have had them, and by and large that has not been an impediment to the country.
Presidents have advisors specifically because we do not expect them to know everything. Now, certainly we can judge a candidate, if they lack a specific kind of knowledge, on the basis of their selection of advisor, but to require a specific kind of knowledge in the candidate themselves seems a little odd.
You can certainly view the President of the United States as CEO of the ‘USA, Inc.’ if you wish. That is not the only duty, though. He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Should we then require military service (and specifically command experience) of candidates for the office?
I would think that if you wanted to look for experience in candidates for the office of President of the United States, you would look for executive experience in the public sector. I.e., mayors and governors.
Executive experience in the private sector, like legislative experience in the public sector, have differences of kind with executive experience in the public sector. The reason you want executive experience in the public sector is because it shows that the candidate knows how to build up a staff and accomplish things in office.
All the economic literacy in the world does not do you any good if you cannot transform that literacy into policy. As you have rightly defended Romney, most of his fiscal conservatism was destroyed by the legislature he had to work with. One could argue that a better politician would have gotten the package he wanted passed, passed. That is not a skill that economic literacy will grant you.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 1:00 AM
That has nothing to do with anything. If she was the most qualified GOP candidate, she had a relevant degree in economics, relevant private sector experience, did not support Cap and Trade policies and did not want government to regulate corporate greed I would have no problem with her. But she doesn’t.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I recall that Palin didn’t like Corporate greed….unless I missed something. Anyone that supports Cap and trade to me is not thinking. Don’t recall her saying she didn’t. I will look that up. As for Joey, you said that he was in love with Palin, and could be a stalker. You might have been joking. But just didn’t sound nice. So what if he is in love with her. I love her. I will look up some of these points that you said she doesn’t support. Corporations is what makes you and me eat. That sucks that they can be greedy. But, it is them that make small businesses survive.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Scott: I have no problem giving people the benefit of the doubt but Palin could have easily refused to state certain policies she disagreed with and simply answered the newpaper question with “The Wall Street Journal” – however since I am positive she does not read it, it never came into her head. I have watched and listened to what she said then and now and her later answer clearly states The New York Times first, which is probably what she reads. I could tell she did not want to get trapped by Couric by answering the NYT. That is not my problem. My problem is that she reads the NYT. The “Economist” answer is just nonsense, there is no way she reads that.
This is how I know she reads the New York Times:
Bearing Up (The New York Times)
There were plenty of ways to answer that question, such as “The Wall Street Journal” or most of the major newspapers are liberally biased so I get my news from other sources.
The cap and trade issue she has yet to refute and no one can link to a source refuting it thus it is clear she supports the position. No true free market economist can support that position. Which makes it impossible for me. When you have researched an issue like this as much as I have and actually understand what damage it will do, it is like committing economic suicide. And if you don’t think I have done the research, click on my signature.
I know plenty who have taken basic economics courses which were essentially Keynesian light. Just that an economic debate exists inside economics is unknown to the vast majority of people. This makes it even more confusing when they read an idiot like Krugman in the NYT who has a PhD in “Economics” (Keynesian).
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Well some of our biggest disasters did not:
FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter
Economics is too important, since everything they do is dictated by budgets in some way. Presidents with no sound economic knowledge believe government can fix problems in the economy or support idealistic government solutions to social problems.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 1:17 AM
See this is why this post is so long, I never said that.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM
According to Amity Shlaes FDR’s economic policies worsened and lengthened the Great Depression. Isn’t this where the term kitchen cabinet came from? Didn’t a major part of the kitchen cabinet of FDR come from business circles, academia or from bureaucrats who specialized in economics? Advisors will only take you so far. Economic philosophy is the cornerstone of sound economic policy. Reagan understood this: we now refer to it as Reaganomics. I personally expect a GOP President to possess a conservative economic philosophy and to believe in it passionately. What he should hire economic advisors to do is to show him how to get from point A to point B to fulfill the main tenets of that philosophy; advisors should be hired not to predetermine the course but to show how to best NAVIGATE it and to avoid any pitfalls.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Pop: May I ask how you know that she doesn’t read the Wall Street Journal? It’s impossible to logically prove a negative. Also, I again ask why you believe you have a right to know what she reads. If she doesn’t want to answer, she doesn’t have to answer. I note that you have refused to answer certain questions in this very thread (I believe it was you), calling privacy privilege. This is your right. Is it not hers as well? If I can respect your right to privacy, and taking in good faith that you are not hiding material evidence with that right, can you not respect hers in the same way?
Also, what is wrong with reading the New York Times? Reading a paper does not equate to espousing its views, no matter how execrable. One should keep up with what the opposition is stating, shoud it not? Also, I do not read any newspapers, ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. Is that a requirement to be economically literate?
I submit you are extrapolating beyond your data. You are reading into the responses information that is not present.
I also disagree, logically, with your premise regarding the cap-trade speech issue. You cannot say she was giving her own views when she was reading a speech written by Senator McCain’s campaign. This does not logically follow. It does not state one way or the other her views on the subject; it states Senator McCain’s.
As such, one must fall back on the null hypothesis. Again, since it is impossible to logically prove a negative, we must start with the null hypothesis (that she does not support it), and look for counter-evidence (that she does support it on her own behalf. I am not saying she doesn’t support it. I am simply asking for evidence that she does support it, and as currently stated the speech you reference so often is not admissible as evidence.
I don’t have to take your word on the toxicity of the subject. I am well aware of what is at stake.
As far as economics courses go, I guess I’ve been lucky. The economics text I see being used almost everywhere were written by Mankiw, who (AFAIK) is quite the classic economist.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Pop: May I ask which branch of government approves budgets in this country? I believe it is the Legislative branch, is it not? As such, I would prefer to have the economic experts there, to ensure that no socialist budget gets passed.
However, you are correct that the executive does have economic decisions to make. The executive has many other decisions to make as well, and not all of them should be done through the lens of economics. Just as an example, economic concerns should not trump national security concerns.
There is only one discipline that touches every decision that the President must make, and that discipline is ethics. If a candidate is not ethical, you cannot trust the candidate with what they say. As such, my first criterion for Presidential candidates is that they are ethical, and this is judged primarily by not what they have accomplished, but how they have accomplished it.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Ethics is the self-recognition that as a husband it not fair to your wife or decent conduct to stare at another attractive woman with lust in your heart; scruples is having the self-discipline to not to go over and ask her for her phone number or for a date. I truly believe that most politicians know what is ethically correct, but do they have the scruples to restrain their action or behavior if it is pejorative. I think Bill Clinton knows the difference between ethics and scruples.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:40 AM
techno: I find that division rather useless, from a practical standpoint.
A far more practical (and timely) ethical question is whether it is morally good to give money to the poor, or to use that money to educate them so that they can get their own money.
Generally speaking, the difference between socialists and capitalists can be found in the way they answer that question.
While I find ethical bases more interesting than questions of practical ethics, most people deal with practical ethics, if they deal with ethics at all.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM
How will Romney stay relevant for the next few years? The Salt Lake Olympics were a long time ago. He’s a one-term Governor who’s been out of office for some time. He certainly won’t be anybody’s top choice for interviews. His 2008 primary loss was a near-epic fail.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Mitt just fine. He’s a good man, and frankly I’d like to see him serving in a future administration. But it’s interesting that with all the “analysis” of Palin, no one’s asking these questions about Mitt.
Mr. Wednesday Night on December 1, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Wednesday: It would seem to me that people here see Romney as heir presumptive of Palin’s current crown. Therefore, if Palin can be deposed/forced to abdicate, Romney slips in by default.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Yes FDR lengthened the great depression. Many other economists share this view but unlike Amity free market economists understand that Government intervention cannot fix anything. FDR had no economic education and his advisors did not support free market economics. They were progressives and followed Keynes. It is not enough to just understand economics but to follow the right economic school.
How FDR Made the Depression Worse (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The New Deal Debunked (again) (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Scott: There is no way to know what she reads, I can only make informed observations. To me she was clearly trying to protect herself. Now if she knew the political leanings of newspapers and actually read the Wall Street Journal she would have said that immediately.
No she is running for VP and should be able to answer what newspaper she reads.
What is wrong with reading the NYT? Well if you like all your news to have a far left slant, nothing. There is nothing you get out of the NYT that you cannot get out of The Wall Street Journal and The Washinton Times.
You don’t need to read a newspaper to be economically literate but to be up on current economic issues you either need to read the WSJ or a comparative publication or website.
I have clearly made my case about Palin and newspapers.
I am sorry but her own spoken words are damn sure evidence. Please disprove it, no one has yet been able to.
Mankiw is a New Keynesian, which are not much better than the old. They believe in the same interventionist policies that Bush is following right now.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 2:42 AM
They should be in both branches.
They are one and the same. If every decision is not made with regards to economics you get idiotic foreign and domestic policy.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 2:46 AM
Some pundits (reported at Politico) are advising Sarah to back away from the spotlight for awhile and go back to Alaska to engage in a period of introspection. I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of withdrawing from the battlefield altogether. If I were a media consultant ‘out of sight out of mind’ is not ideal strategy I would recommend to an aspiring politician or anybody who is serious about courting public favor. Over-exposure can be adjusted later; under-exposure may bring a death sentence to one’s dreams and hopes. Flaunt it when you have it would be my advice to Sarah, if she is serious about making a run in 2012.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 3:07 AM
Extremity versus reality expressed in one sentence.
sethstorm on December 1, 2008 at 3:11 AM
How about a couple jokes:
There are three men on a train. One of them is an economist and one of them is a logician and one of them is a mathematician. And they have just crossed the border into Scotland (I don’t know why they are going to Scotland) and they see a brown cow standing in a field from the window of the train (and the cow is standing parallel to the train).
And the economist says, “Look, the cows in Scotland are brown.”
And the logician says, “No. there are cows in Scotland of which one at least is brown.”
And the mathematician says, “No. there is at least one cow in Scotland, of which one side appears to be brown.”
here’s another:
An economist and a banker are walking down the street together, when the banker notices a $20 bill on the sidewalk. The economist says, “No, that can’t be a $20 bill, because if it were, someone would have picked it up already.” The banker stares at the economist for a moment, then picks up the $20 and puts it in his pocket.
and:
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and whispers “What do you want it to equal?”
Got these off of angrybear.blogspot.com
p.s. Not sure where y’all were for the primaries but Romney, although eminently qualified to be pres. is to the same degree unelectable…remember?
captconrad on December 1, 2008 at 3:23 AM
It seems like the Republican Party is in a lose-lose situation. Put up a RINO democrat-light candidate like McCain and the base stays home. Put up a conservative like Palin or Jindal and the base votes but the independents stay home or vote Democrat.
Is this too simplistic of an explanation?
Crux Australis on December 1, 2008 at 3:39 AM
The problem is…they have screwed us to the wall. We have no choice but to find someone to “unscrew” us, the more qualified the better.
I will go to my grave convinced that our current fiscal state and economic chaos is the planned work of our enemies, who have exploited our weaknesses and legislative greed and stupidity to destroy this country. This crisis did not happen accidentally.
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 3:41 AM
I would advise her to take a break from public view and brush up on her knowledge and q & a skills. She still does not inspire confidence in a large segment of the populace. Inability to form a concise and cogent answer will be her undoing if the weakness continues.
She should watch all the Romney clips.
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Could we be experiencing back door “reparations”?
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 3:52 AM
No, but I disagree with the idea that independents will continue to vote Dem. There were 2 reasons why Obama did well with indies in 08:
1) An overall anti-Bush “change” sentiment.
2) They thought the GOP was responsible for the financial crisis.
Those things won’t apply in 2012. In fact, I think a lot of indies will sour on Obama and consider staying home. The GOP needs a Reaganesque candidate who can inspire record turnout from conservatives while appealing to moderates with charisma, honesty and common sense.
Sarah Palin is that candidate, which is why she’s the most feared woman in America.
Mr. Wednesday Night on December 1, 2008 at 4:13 AM
BHO gave some of the most long-winded, incoherent answers in Presidential campaign history and it didn’t hurt him too much. Then he gave even longer-winded, triply incoherent answers in opposition to wach of those and still didn’t get hurt. Then, he acted like a deer-in-the-headlights and they called him ‘cool’ and calm, though ‘paralyzed’ and ‘confused’ was much more apt – or, as BHO himself would have put it, “Above my pay grade”. None of it hurt him.
If Murtha had called his constituents racists and idiots a few more times, he probably could have pulled in 5% more. There are very different dynamics going on, these days.
progressoverpeace on December 1, 2008 at 4:13 AM
Inherent in these 10 phrases are what Sarah needs to do to prepare herself for the battle royal ahead: 1)she has to get ‘her ducks in a row’ at the home front and ‘find herself’ to determine why she wants to be President 2)she has to ‘circle the wagons’ to refute any false rumors and assertions 3)she needs to ‘make a clean break’ from the McCain campaign to assert her own political identity 4)she needs to establish firmly what she wants to espouse and not wait to ’see which way the wind is blowing’ 5)if Sarah decides to run in 2012 she needs ‘take up the gauntlet’ and ‘lay the groundwork’ necessary to run first a successful primary campaign and then a general election campaign 6)she needs to’fire a shot across (Obama’s) bow’ to alert the MSM and the public that she is a serious candidate 7) Sarah needs ‘to catch fire’ and ‘ride a wave’ of optimism during her campaign 8)having already gotten ‘a foot in the door’ with the conservative community Sarah needs to strengthen ‘the ties that bind’ 9)eventually Sarah will have to ‘reach out’ to voters who do not have a natural affinity towards ‘the cut of her jib’ or her ideas 10)and finally Sarah has to develop a campaign that does ‘not miss a beat’ as she ‘beat the bushes’ to ‘drum up support’.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 4:25 AM
Team Sarah has hit 60,000 members. They aim for 100,000 members by inauguration day Jan 20, 2009. And the primary season won’t be kicking into high gear until 2011. Wow!What will the membership numbers be by then? In addition there are several web sites dedicated to Sarah’s nomination and a weekly radio show on WS radio every Monday devoted to publicizing news about Sarah and to help her in her bid for the White House in 2012 if she chooses to go that route.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 4:43 AM
I still think 2012 is too early for Sarah. Let another McCain or Dole run in 2012.
Crux Australis on December 1, 2008 at 4:58 AM
I know I am repeating myself but I think the idea is important enough to re-emphasize. In one of my first postings on this thread I proposed that one of Sarah’s greatest strengths could be that she would be able to re-unite the 3 legged stool of conservatism– national defense, fiscal, and social under one umbrella and that she might be able to add a fourth leg to that stool-libertarian conservatism. Sprinkle in moderates who are in 1 or more of these camps, some independents and Reagan conservatives you have the making of a viable long-term coalition. In essence this why Sarah is being courted by the conservative movement as reported recently in the Washington Times.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 5:01 AM
1200+ comments on this thread and still going strong. It is this indefatigable resolve that we will need to keep us all committed and rally others to the conservative cause as we witness Obama’s attempt to radically alter the social, political and economic fabric of America over the next 4 years.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 5:17 AM
Pop: Unfortunately, you have stopped listening to me. Certainly, you can use her own spoken words as evidence. However, as I and others have stated, the words she spoke were not hers. Not conclusively. This is now the third time I have stated this, and you have not refuted it. Please answer this counter-argument.
As for the newspapers, did Governor Palin answer that she read the NYT to understand the world, or simply that she read it? Certainly all here are aware of the slant of the NYT. Again, I believe you go past your data in your argument.
As far as the public actually having a right to know what she reads, I would ask you what newspapers any of the other candidate reads, by their own admission.
Also, you continue to say what she would do, when what you mean is what she should have done, in your eyes. I and others here have argued on what could have been meant, not what should have been meant. As such, our analysis is positive, while yours is normative. While you can certainly argue that she does not fit your requirements for the Presidency, please note those are your requirements alone, and to ask anyone else to accept them is a bit much for most people.
The qualifications for the Presidency are stated in the Constitution, and nowhere is economic (or even linguistic) literacy required, to my knowledge.
I require a pro-life candidate, but that does not mean I try to make a blanket statement that only pro-life candidates are eligible for the Presidency. Clearly, they are not.
It might help the discussion were you to limit your discussion on ‘requirements’ to explicitly your own requirements.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 6:09 AM
No it was not accidental but it was also not planned, just bad economic policy led by government intervention:
Understanding the financial crisis (Video) (8min)
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 8:41 AM
1. McCain
2. Palin
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 8:43 AM
The Anti Republican resentment didn’t have anything to do with that? Really :)
Btw, CNN Streaming Live Palin Rally in Georgia now.
An Era of Hate on December 1, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Really? Unless people claiming to be fiscally conservative are economically illiterate:
Biden, Palin in complete agreement: Carbon caps are coming — and clean coal? (The Industry Standard)
IFILL: “…do you support capping carbon emissions?”
PALIN: “I do. I do.”
Palin denounces Wall Street “greed” to big money donors (FOX News)
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 8:48 AM
I’m sorry but you seem to think that economic literacy means agreeing with Poptech about every single issue facing America. There are quite a few liberals out there who I would consider good businessmen (Warren Buffet comes to mind right away) who I don’t exactly agree with on matters of public policy.
Illinidiva on December 1, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Scott: Those are the words she spoke and the rest is just excuses. You don’t firmly believe in something and then willfully speak against it.
Let me put it is word Social Cons can understand. Imagine Palin said she was Pro-Choice because McCain was. LMAO, we all know the response that would have gotten, so please, please stop making excuses for words that came out of her mouth.
My “Data” is Palin’s non answer to a simple question. There is no excuse for her answer that I find acceptable and neither did all non-Palin fanboys.
I have not researched what newspapers the candidates read because they are not the issue, the issue is Palin’s non-answer to a simple question and then the ridiculous defense of her huge screw up. Your analysis is a bunch of excuses.
See now we are back to the constitution and thus you discredit all the criticism against Obama – why do you people not understand this? Unbelievable and you guys still do not get why you lost. If you don’t wake up to people not accepting Palin as remotely qualified base on rational analysis of the facts then you have no chance.
Instead you had a rabid defense based on her ideals when they kept questioning her experience, which is not VP or POTUS material let alone the most qualified to be VP of the options available.
No kidding your requirements are Pro-Life – that is all social conservatives “requirements” are! I’m Pro-Life but this one track litmus test is the most absurdly idiotic thing I have ever seen in my life.
Social Conservatives refuse to admit this is the main reason they defend her so rabidly, oh sure Pro-Gun (McCain too) is good and Anti-Gay Marriage (McCain and Obama) is to but I have been listening to the moronic one subject litmus test for too long. This is my problem with social conservatives they cannot think past one topic.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM
well I think we have seen it all on this thread, Poptech has to be some kind of Romney or Obama operative, like Scott H mentions above … Pop doesn’t respond to any counter argument … he has already posted the resumes at least 4 times and the ‘carbon” argument 3 times
He doesn’t seem to understand that Sarah Palin could not openly disagree with the person at the top of the ticket during a campaign
He doesn’t seem to understand that Palin, through “government intervention” only ENDED the crony capitalism in Alaska
His knowledge of her record in AK. is clear … he has none
He believes what Palin did in taking on the oil companies went against capitalism when in fact all she did was take away the corruption and cronyism that they were benefiting from during previous administrations in Alaska
He somehow thinks that sweetheart government intervention for the Alaskan industry is “free-market” capitalism but that Palin taking away these luxuries is an “attack on capitalism”
The facts remain clear, Palin acted as she should have under the Alaskan Constitution, the oil companies were getting away with “murder” with the AID OF THE ALASKAN GOVERNMENT and she decided that this would end
Something that took great political courage AND “economic literacy”
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Economic literacy means understanding free market economics otherwise you support socialism, even Keynes is socialist. This is not agreeing with me, this is understanding free market economics as stated by Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and for the most part Milton Friedman.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Here we go back to the lies again. I’ve counter argued everything that wasn’t a strawman argument. But it is easier to keep trying to discredit me as some “operative”, please.
I understand that you don’t believe in something and then willfully speak the opposite. If you do, you have no integrity.
Crony capitalism is caused by government intervention AKA corruption.
The rest is just made up strawman positions you invent out of thin air.
Joey, you are sad pathetic man to continue to be this dishonest.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 9:17 AM
and you know nothing about Sarah Palin’s record as Governor of Alaska
Crony Capitalism is what was going on in Alaska before Palin enacted reforms and he basis was the State Constitution … she represents the people of Alaska
Palin ended the crony capitalism
You must have very little economic knowledge if you are making the argument that:
Palin is against free-market capitalism because he “interventions” in the Alaskan energy industry
and you somehow believe that BEFORE Palin, the energy industry in AK. was free-market but Palin’s reforms are “an attack on capitalism”
oh and by the way … you let me know when Palin introduces government mandated health-care like Romney did in Mass.
once again … you should study her record
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Hey, you can Google…
I have never read an economist, who was a good politician…and as the saying goes, Presidents are always looking for that one-armed economist…the one that doesn’t say “On the other hand”.
Economists, by and large, always have huge escape clauses in their “predictions”…and that’s what they do, they predict. If they have enough predictions, some will be right. But basically they guess, and they make up words to back up and back out of their guesses.
The worst economists, are the “libertarian” variety. That species can use “bigger” words, because libertarians like big words.
Economists got us in this mess…and now “economists” will get us out?
I have seen more “reasons” for this economic turmoil, more blame (after the fact), and more solutions, coming for more inept “economists” then I ever knew existed.
And the ones that “predicted this”, like the astrologers in the Enquirer, look at their history and they will have had a dismal rate of success…but even a blind squirrel will find an acorn.
What we need is:
Less “economists” and better businessmen running business.
Less economists, and better politicians running for office.
Less economics classes, and more common sense.
And the last thing we need is more libertarians, who pretend they know everything, blame everything on other people, and never have a workable solutions to anything…the technical word for a libertarian (they love technical words, is……….LOSER.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 9:36 AM
So if you don’t understand, you become a socialist? If you don’t understand “free market”, then some genetic DNA attack on your mind and you suddenly support socialism?
What a strange argument…
But if you understand free market, you don’t support socialism?
So these socialist economists, they don’t understand the free market? The ones with the doctorate degrees, they must have slept through those courses….
Me thinks you have had 2 semesters of economics, and four semesters of Googling…
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Are you putting lipstick on a pig, Pop? No amount of ethereal economic blather can explain this. Bad policy can be contrived to achieve a certain outcome.
Do you realize that Russia has more spies in the US today than at any time since the so-called end of the cold war? No one even know how many China has in place. Do you realize that many of the legislative aides to our Senators and Congresspersons have less than stellar ideology. They write the legislation, and they may be on the payroll of our enemies also.
Congress is stupid and greedy. They have been exploited.
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Hate to tell you this but Keynes theories on recessions/ govt. spending are a mainstay of intro. to macroeconomics. Therefore, anyone who has taken econ 101 in college has heard of this and by your argument, this extra education has increased their economic illiteracy, which directly contradicts your fixation with where politicians went to school.
As I mentioned above, there are quite a few people who are liberal dems. who I’d consider good businessmen with a keen understanding of the economy, but who I’d disagree with. Economics is not an exact science, so having competing theories within academia is acceptable.
Illinidiva on December 1, 2008 at 10:06 AM
The ‘Cuda’s apparently continuing to show some loyalty to McCain in Georgia. Maybe the backbiting diva that all those really loyal and classy McCain staffers talked about is going to speak later (or appear in 2012). She’s also apparently on the BaBa Wawa 10 Most Fascinating list. I assume this means that she agreed to an interview with the great Baba (sigh). Scheduled to air on Thursday at 10pm (EST).
meltenn on December 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
joey, your Palin fanboy site is unoriginal, tedious, amateurish and predictable. Please explain as best you can how Palin garners votes in a national election beyond her 30-35% base. Some secular conservatives beyond her social con base will hold their respective noses and vote for her (but many will not). Moderates aren’t buying her schtick and liberals obviously despise her. She’s not Reagan (and it dishonors this great President to compare the two), so save that lame argument. How does she win?
dakine on December 1, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Reagan was also a “lightweight”, just an actor, no substance…that is how you fight people like Reagan and Palin.
When you have broad appeal, where the appeal is not based on an ideology but the way the ideology is presented, then you have to attack the engine that is driving the popularity.
Thus you reduce her to just a “shtick”.
Her policies are not that much different then that “Hollywood actor”, what they both have is an amazing way to connect to the people.
If you give me two candidates, one an absolute genius in politics and decision making, and one that connects to the voters…the connection wins every time.
She connects, not to just a few people, remember she had a 80%+ approval rating in Alaska, across the board. The fact that her detractors downplay that shows that they (you) do not understand the dynamics of how people get elected.
In the next two years, if she wants to continue the national ride, she will develop a platform that will answer the basic questions, then her ability to transfer that to the public will be the deciding issue. The decision won’t be…what policies will she have to get elected, but how will those policies be delivered to the voting public.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Twelve hundred fifty comments later! I rest my case!
Christian Conservative on December 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I don’t understand … my views about Palin are “unoriginal, tedious, amateurish and predictable”
yet you want my opinion on how she wins a national election
are you slow or something?
If my answer is predictable, you should already know it …
wow
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I am good with all 3 Romney/Palin/Jindal
As long as we get rid of McCain/Huck the world will be a good place again.
hanzblinx on December 1, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Go ahead and tell me that the only reason she polls so much lower among all voters is because Democrats fear her. You know you want to.
AP, telling you anything is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes one’s time and annoys the pig.
SKYFOX on December 1, 2008 at 11:46 AM
In case you are new here, the Romney threads have always generated a huge number of responses. As has been the case for two years, the establishment Republicans continue to try to destroy Romney.
For those who think the good ole boys did us in this time, you’re right. Because they kneecapped Romney. Everything after that was freefall.
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I voted for Mitt and was disappointed as all hell when Huckabee stayed in the race just to destroy Romney
Romney owned the debates and should have been the nominee, would he have won? I don’t know
But I do know that I would have supported him more than I did McCain (I only donated money and volunteered after the Palin pic)
Romney was the best GOP candidate in the primaries
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Just curious, but why do you think Romney and Palin are at the top of the list of Republicans preferred by all voters and why Romney only polls .3% better?
littleguy on December 1, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Folks, look up the defintion of ‘presumptuous: inconsiderate, disrespectful or overconfident, especially in doing something when not entitled or qualified to do it-look, why doesn’t somebody flat out tell Obama is he is being presumptuous regarding the Mombai situation; he will not assume office for 50 days. George Bush is America’s president. He should express unqualified support for his efforts and let the ‘real’ President do his job. And folks, finally let’s keep our eye of the ball: Obama and his merry men and women are the true enemy and diabolical villains not Sarah, Mitt, Bobby, Mark, Tim, Mike or Poptech. As for me I will never make that mistake.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 12:14 PM
The problem with Romney is he doesn’t connect with people…he spent an ungodly amount of money, a record amount, only to have very little return on that money.
He is a great guy, great looking, intelligent, etc., etc, but people do not connect with him.
And connection is the key to winning an election…not ideas, not intelligence, it is perception. As wrong as that is, that is how we elect. We connect, then we find the common bonds, or we hunt for policies to confirm.
Or we reject on personality, and then look for “reasons” to confirm our rejection. That is pretty obvious how the majority votes…of course no one admits that, it is always the “other guy”.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM
agreed and the worst part of it all is that most of the time it is not the candidate’s fault
For example Romney … he is looked down upon because he is from a wealthy family, was a successful businessman etc. etc. so in today’s society he is the “problem”
when in fact he should be a role model … we are becoming a society in which success is looked down upon and the democrats have the monopoly on the class warfare BS
this is the result of a politically uneducated populace who finds fault with Romney’s hair instead of his political beliefs and experiences
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Obviously, Obama didn’t want to stake his credibility on a Senate race that his guy Jim Martin is behind in. If his guy does indeed lose he could have been accused of not ‘having coattails’ and that this might be bad for 2010. In addition it wouid not look good for him to go up against Sarah and lose. That is not the template that the Dems want to get out. Practically this is a shrewd move by Obama; however from the point of view of leadership it is an example of political and moral cowardice. Instead Sarah Palin has the guts to put her political cred on the line by campaigning for Chambliss-if he loses tomorrow guess what the MSM storyline will be: not that the Dems will be closer to a filibuster-proof Senate but that Sarah Palin is finished as a GOP power broker and will not be a serious candidate in 2012. If Chambliss wins the MSM will spend more time on Obama’s team and the Mombai incident.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM
No doubt (although his success, like any other child of a famous and powerful politician can be overstated).
But it really doesn’t matter, unless you want to debate it just for fun.
The facts are the facts, that is why someone like Palin has a better chance then Romney. There is no doubt Romney is better qualified from an objective perspective…but Palin will win and Romney will lose in an election.
So do you back someone because it is “right”, or do you back someone to win, and make it “right”?
The dems backed someone that would win, and being “right” doesn’t seem so important now does it? Having the power in politics is more important then putting the “best” candidate forward.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM
And no one will admit they are part of that “populace”, every one things they are voting because their candidate is the “best”.
But the reality is, the “politically uneducated populace” is the much greater majority, and that is who will elect every president from now on…so we better tailor our candidate to fit that populace.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Remember should George Patton have consulted with or listened to the German generals to how he should have run his military campaign? The same for the Democrats, MSM and left-wing and moderate pundits who are more than willing to offer advice on who the GOP should or should not put forward for President in 2012.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM
well the media is responsible for a lot of this as well
take the Kennedys … even though they have done nearly nothing in the private sector they are treated like royalty and just run for public office
Somebody like Romney is automatically labeled a “spoiled rich kid” who is against the “people”
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 12:42 PM
even though Romney worked hard to become a successful business man in his own right
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM
We consume what we like…we like fairy tales, and Kennedy’s still live on the legend of JFK, notice they have not held any national office, they are beloved by Mass.
True, but being a “consultant” is what children of powerful people become.
Thompson’s son was a “consultant”, Chelsea’s first real job (at 150 grand) was a “consultant”, Jackson’s son was a “consultant”…few children of powerful people do not become “successful”, and of course it is because of their “hard work”, and connections.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:54 PM
The same terms keep coming up in every comment section of any Palin coverage–”fanboy”…”dyke”.. “obsessed”.
John Stewart (of “F*** you Sarah Palin fame”) called Greta “obsessed” because of the post-election interview, and asstroturfers on her site repeat it if Governor Palin is so much as mentioned.
This is more asselrod asstroturfing- call people names and continue to sexualize Governor Palin or her supporters, instead of sticking to political argument. Remember this vid? It still applies. The marching orders remain the same.
nyrofan on December 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM
So Obama now says ‘that the vision for change comes first and foremost from him.’ Wow, he really does think he is the Messiah. In other words, change does not come from helping his supporters to pay their mortgage, not out of a perceived need by his supporters for a national health care system, not out of responding to the threat of Islamic terrorism to better protect America, not out of a concern for seniors who have seen their savings eroded in the financial meltdown, and not from the traditional vision of America as set forth by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Hallejuah ‘change we can believe in’ comes first and foremost from the One, the apotheosis of new-age transformation; does Obama remind you of anybody that walked the earth 70 years ago? NB: in addition to reading Atlas Shrugged also read the poem the Second Coming by WB Yeats to find out how America’s future might unfold in the ascendenacy of Obama.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM
you are exactly correct … if Governor Palin was as useless as they say she is, they wouldn’t spend so much time attacking her
but we should expect this … its typical David Axelrod
Every time Obama has risen through the political machine, he destroys his opponents or gets them kicked off of the ballot
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
nyrofan on December 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM
The propensity for sexism in modern politics, in no small way exacerbated by the disgusting Obama campaign, is a blight on our country, which considers itself so modern. If this is how they treat their women and children, then the US deserves to live as the third world garrison state it is well on its way to becoming. We have our Idi Amin now.
chunderroad on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Sarah is just too exciting compared to Romney. Romney would be too boring, and I’d rather see Sarah as POTUS because she can hire experts (like Romney) for her cabinet.
She has leadership skills and guts. That is what we are short of in this country.
Oh, and I’m both a fiscal conservative and a social conservative and a foreign policy conservative (dont’ like neocon overextension of military and giving away free money to nations when we can’t really afford it anymore).
Practically every socon I know is also for limited governement and liberty.
Sapwolf on December 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I hate to do this but Romney can be Palin’s (or any young republican) version of Joe Biden
I am not comparing Romney with Biden … Romney is 10x the politician and leader Biden will ever be
but Romney can play the role of the “elder statesman” to a younger Republican
he is like a reliable backup QB
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM
chunderroad: hey now you’re the extremist-Idi Amin. Just kidding. About two month ago I read from another HA thread 25 similarities between Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama-yes 25 similarities. When a duck walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it just might be a duck.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
To get an undergrad in geology I didn’t have to take an econ class from UWYO.
Would have rather had to have taken that instead of ‘art appreciation’. Ugh.
Badger40 on December 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I think Mitt Romney has too much ego to be a ‘back-up’ anything-not a criticism, just an observation.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
BTW- Romney has what it takes to lead people etc.
But I am dreaming if I ever think America would go for him. I voted for him in the primaries. But I knew his religion was going to be an issue.
I still find great prejudice around the good old USA when it comes to being LDS.
Badger40 on December 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM
He would have lost big for a variety of reasons. Nice guy, but no way could he have even got close to beating Obama. The only reason McCain pulled ahead slightly before the meltdown was because Sarah was on the ticket. I believe Romney would not have picked Sarah.
Romney comes across as kinda phony or not authentic and this can be a weakness. I did not vote in the primary but I would have voted for Romney only because Huck was too one-dimensional and McCain was just to moderate/liberal for my tastes.
If the economy tanks and we get inflation over the next term and O-man’s term looks like Jimmy Carter II, the GOP will not be running a placeholder but a candidate to really win it. One thing to remember is that it will look bad if Republicans in the primary go negative on each other. That’s why Huckabee tanked: He played the religion card on Romney which was disgusting.
Imagine Sarah in a primary debate saying she believes that Republicans, Independents and all Americans should pull together and stop the vicious attacks and that we should rise above it. And what if she reminds the Republicans of Reagan’s 11th commandment? She will catapult up in the minds of the GOP voters. That is the true Sarah. Her knives will not be wielded openly in a public forum to slice up the GOP. She knows that being positive and giving voters something to vote FOR is better than fear and hate. That is the governor Alaskans love. She can be tough, but it is generally not her style in the open but behind closed doors. Remember the advice to Biden? Don’t attack her in ways that come across as insulting to women, etc.
Sapwolf on December 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Let’s forever discard religion and identity politics as two variables to be used as a club to disparage and demean potential GOP candidates. America will never become a theocracy or install the Inquisition and women gained the right to vote in 1920 and have every right to vie for the highest office in the land.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I agree with you strongly here.
One thing that would really be a home run for the GOP is if Obama struggles and gives the opening to Republicans, and Palin and Mitt run a vibrant, energeting primary battle but with ZERO negative attacks like they are pals. Then either one could choose the other for their running mate. If Sarah won the primaries, Romney would be a dynamite veep selection since he would be far better than Biden, and Sarah with at least one and a half terms as governor would easily have plenty of experience compare to Obama now.
What was the one bright thing about Romney in this election season?: He stepped down humbly when the numbers were not there rather than hurting McCain further. Sarah will remember that when choosing a running mate with economics experience.
Palin/Romney could be a very strong ticket in a Peter Schiff ecomony with the incumbent Obama and Dems in Congress.
Sapwolf on December 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Never underestimate the POWER of humility to thereby form great teams.
Anybody remember Earl Morral with the ‘72 Dolphins keeping them undefeated while Greise was injured? And then the guy’s humility in letting Greise take the top QB job back without any overly stubborn infighting? Any Dolphins fans out there care to confirm this analogy/assessment?
Real men (and women) lead even when they know they may not get all the share of credit.
That’s power. That’s teamwork. That’s victory.
Sapwolf on December 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Now, I admit, I don’t know much about Jon Huntsman Jr. but he looks like a rising star to me
HOWEVER
he is almost an exact clone of Mitt Romney … he is from a wealthy family and they share the same religion
anybody have more info on him ?
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Palin is a disaster for the general election.
Palin gets a terrible reaction from the suburbs especially suburban women.
Overall right before the election 10 percent said Palin was ready to be president.
19 percent were more likely to vote for McCai with Palin and 31 percent were less likely.
All the polling shows McCain would have done better without Palin on the ticket.
Palin destroyed McCain with independents. McCain was leading Obama with independents and wound up losing by 20 points.
Palin destroyed McCain in the suburbs.
Look at Florida McCain was crusing to victory there until Palin.
Palin also lost many conservatives not thinking she was VP material.
Overall her pick was a disaster.
Run her in 2012. This country has already been handed over to the marxist.
Palin in 2012 would lost by 30 percent.
We need a conservative who can appeal to conservatives and moderates. That is what Reagan was able to do.
Palin should be a non starter because independents run away from her like the plague.
Obama wouldn’t be president elect if it wasn’t for Palin.
Palin altered this country in a horrific way.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Obama was only getting 52 percent of the Hillary voters before the Palin pick. He ended up getting in the high 80’s.
We need a conservative that doesn’t get crushed with independents.
The idea is to run a conservative who appeals to both conservatives and independents.
Palin can’t do this and thus is a disaster for the general election.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Palin-Huntsman 2012
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I can’t believe any republican can’t see how big a disaster Palin is for the general election.
Independents are very down on Palin.
Suburban voters are very down with Palin.
These are two groups republicans have to do well with.
You want a conservative that can appeal to them and Palin has them running away towards a marxist in Obama.
Palin is a curse on the republican party.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Like I said, people make an emotional decision then search for some “facts” to back it up.
To say Palin altered this country,is an interesting overstatement. So much of an exaggeration, it makes the rest of your post seem almost logical…almost.
Did you see any of her rally’s? She is the one with tens of thousands of yelling screaming fans. From every venue, she packed the house…that is not a sign of a “losing campaign”.
First, the economy dictated who won this election, and by your post, you apparently think McCain’s charisma and charm led the charge and Palin sucked all of his “energy” from his campaign…remind me never to hire you as a campaign analyst.
McCain was the one the independents were driven from, how can someone who was bringing three times more people to her rally then McCain, be a drag on the ticket.
McCain’s absolute disaster in “handling” the economic problem was his Waterloo. He was made a fool, offering nothing and doing nothing (except dropping out of the race and doing nothing).
Your post doesn’t make sense.
You assume the only issues in the campaign was Palin. And your assumption is that Palin was running the campaign.
Without Palin, McCain would have lost by 15-20 points…I think there are only about 17 people in the whole U.S. who think that McCain would have done better without Palin.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
That argument might have credibility were it not for the extraordinary lengths the good old boys AND the MSM went to destroy Romney. Romney, not Palin, was the Democrats worst nightmare. He proved his electability in Massachusetts.
The Democrats knew the meltdown was upon us cause they created it. In an economic meltdown, the populace would have chosen Romney.
The good old boys didn’t want a Republican in office when America failed.
eaglesdontflock on December 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
McCain-Dole 2012!
joey24007 on December 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM
ryandan: do you think that the financial meltdown might have had something to do with Hillary voters and independents either voting for Obama or sitting out the election altogether. Citing Sarah as the main reason for this phenomenon is operating in a vacuum. Unfortuantely in politics sometimes individual politicians lose control over influencing the electorate. When the story of this past election is written it will say that after the GOP convention Palin helped McCain to narrow the gap with Obama or pull ahead in the battleground states but with the advent of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the sub-prime mortgage mess and the $700B bailout that McCain was doomed from that point, losing 8-10 points during the crisis, which he never recovered from. That the McCain-Palin ticket managed to garner 59.4m votes, only 2.6m fewer votes that George Bush in 2004, is astounding considering the many variables, including the economy that were against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM
To Right,
Wrong, Palin destroyed McCain with independents and suburban women.
The hillary feminist voters couldn’t stand Obama and Palin forced them into Obama’s hands.
Palin was a major drag on the ticket. All the polling shows it.
The rallies are you kidding me. The people that don’t go to rallies make up 99 percent of the vote.
I know so many people that voted for Bush over Kerry that said they didn’t vote for McCain because of Palin.
I can’t tell you how widespead it was.
Focus groups from four years ago where the same voters voted for Bush said Palin drove them to Obama.
She was a disaster on every level.
Palin gave us Obama as president.
Without Palin we wouldn’t be staring at 6 Obama marxist judges.
Palin according to last poll before the election had 10 percent of voters saying she was qualified for the presidency.
10 percent.
Many more voters said they were less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin.
Palin gutted McCain in the suburbs and especially suburban women.
She was an unmitigated disaster.
McCain in mid august was leading Obama in the gallup poll.
A mid august poll had Obama losing to McCain by 5 percent in Reuters.
Obama was headed to defeat until Palin.
Before the Palin pick only half of Hillary’s supporters were voting for Obama the number shot up to the mid 80’s after Palin.
McCain was beating Obama in the suburbs before Palin.
McCain was winning independents by 10 percent before Palin and lost by 20 percent.
Palin became the issue not Obama. Obama’s extremism wasn’t the issue Palin became the issue.
Palin the exit polls show was a bigger drag on McCain than Bush.
There are polls that asked if Palin wasn’t on the ticket how would you have voted and McCain did much better.
She is a curse for the party and because of her that marxist is president.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Huntsman is dem light. He is a good friend of Aunold of Kalifornia. I could go on, but I’m at work and don’t have time.
If it was his father running – he is a great man. He was born with nothing and he plans to die with nothing. His cancer center is world renowned. He will leave everything to his charity.
I think Romney connects one on one, but maybe not in a crowd.
Bambi on December 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Besides, jon huntsman jr supported mccain. His dad supported Romney.
Bambi on December 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Reagan appealed to conservatives and independents.
Independents avoid Palin like the plague.
There is no such thing as Palin democrats like Reagan democrats.
Reagan did great in macomb county michigan. Reagan did great in the suburbs.
Reagan was a conservative who appealed to both conservatives and independents. Palin can’t do that.
Can you ever imagine Reagan being punked by that nitwit Couric.
Reagan would have destroyed Couric.
Palin is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan was a savior Palin is a curse.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 Next »