Rasmussen: Obama 45, Romney 45; Obama 48, Palin 42
posted at 2:11 pm on July 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
This says more about the downturn in The One’s approval ratings than it does about Mitt or Sarahcuda, but you know the Hot Air policy: You can never have too many 2012 polls.
Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided…
When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin…
In a three-way race, Palin hurts Romney by drawing 28% Republican support. Romney captures 52% of the GOP vote in that scenario.
Lest anyone doubt how overwhelming Palin’s support is among the HA readership, compare those boldfaced numbers to the results of our own poll last Monday. We love you guys, but in case it wasn’t clear from last year’s primaries, a mirror image of Republican voters you ain’t.
Question: Why didn’t Rasmussen poll Obama vs. Huckabee? Public Policy Polling has its own set of 2012 hypothetical match-ups out today and Huck fares best among the big three, trailing The One by six points — the fourth time in as many PPP polls that he’s been Obama’s toughest challenge. Palin trails by eight and Romney by nine (despite doing relatively well with black voters). The most interesting detail comes from another PPP poll taken last week, though: Contrary to expectations, Palin is viewed favorably by 86 percent of Republican voters in the northeast, fully 10 points higher than she is in the south. I’m not sure what explains that — maybe the Republican base in New England has now shrunk to a Hot-Air-ish molten red core so that, paradoxically, “true conservatives” fare better up there than RINOs (see, e.g., Toomey and Specter in Pennsylvania) — but needless to say, it could mean trouble for Romney. If Palin does run, it’s easy to imagine her leveraging evangelicals to squeak through in Iowa; an upset in New Hampshire immediately after that would make her the prohibitive favorite. Expect Team Mitt to work quietly behind the scenes between now and then to make sure as many GOP primaries as possible are open ones.










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 … 13 14 15 16 Next »
It isn’t “written”. Here are a couple of reasons it won’t work.
Mitt does not respect Palin
Mitt would not be second fiddle, and Palin would probably not want to be VP fodder again.
Mitt’s upbringing is that women do not hold seats of power, yes I know he accepts it, but his religion and faith does not accept women in any leadership role. Hence he would never be a VP with Palin as Pres.
The continuous MSM focus on Christian vs. Mormon, would take away from what they need to accomplish.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Oh, at least one other….Palin would bring in 15,000 for a rally, Mitt 1,500…I don’t think he could take that.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Like the Timex watch “She takes a licking and keeps on ticking”.
scrubjay on July 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Open primaries would give us Huckabee for a nominee. The left would love to see him run because he cannot win.
suzyk on July 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
From Palin’s Twitter:
Intriguing in light of the questions about her immigration stance.
cs89 on July 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM
why is it, if one republican is doing well as Romney in the Rasmussen poll, the supporters of the lesser ones, Palin and Huckabee, have to bash him? Why can’t we all be glad that republicans are gaining support against the liberal democrat? This far out from 2012, all it illustrates is there is hope for the GOP.
It seems whenever something commendable happens to Romney, the Palinites and Hucksters can’t stand it. Look just because your guy did not do as well (but did well just the same) it is not an insult to you. Why are you so defensive?
You guys are so predictable, temperamental, and childish. Spouting all this “my Republican is better than your Republican” is so school yard. Chill out.
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Oh, and I think healthcare is one area Palin and Huck will be much different. From Huck’s blog about healthcare:
http://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=2722
To be fair, he does talk about tax credits, portability etc. I just can’t imagine Palin’s more libertarian approach being as preachy/educational in tone, like Huckabee’s “we need to give poeple information that changes the way they think about an issue.” Says some true thing about prevention, etc. Just isn’t in the purview of the Federal Govt., IMO.
cs89 on July 21, 2009 at 11:48 AM
http://cinie.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/if-she-ran/
Dr Evil on July 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
You’re John Cameron Swayze and you did a nice job on this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSrvluQBy8&feature=related
Jeff from WI on July 21, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Are you talking about the supporters of Huck, Paul, Romney, or Palin?
The way you try to vet which one is better, is by “spouting” off.
If someone says Palin is weak on immigration, but Mitt is strong…then a retort is probably going to come along.
What you perceive as “tearing down” others perceive as “revealing”.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Why, what a brilliant way to encourage civility! Call people names! Who woulda thunk?
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM
“Exatly. I get the feeling that many of Mittens….”
Mittens? Oh! I get it! See what he did there, folks? He took Romney’s first name “Mitt”, and added “ens” on it so it comes out “mittens”. Which apparently is supposed to be a play on words intended to be some type of insult. Get it? Mitt? Mittens? Pretty clever, huh?
Fed45 on July 21, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Glass houses. Just sayin’.
scrub_oak on July 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Please prove that statement.
I dont’ remember Gov. Palin ever saying anything vulgar about either Mitt, Huck, or even Ron Paul.
Put your money where your mouth is.
upinak on July 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
The risk is not that Mitt can win. With Obama continuing to do his ‘destroy country’ Obama thing, any GOP candidate would have a chance.
The risk is that if Mitt WINS. Then we get another McCain waffler moderate at best who really ends up doing nothing to trim back big government and we get in effect Bush 4 (after Bush 3 Obama) and more big government.
I am amazed that educated people here on HotAir believe that Mitt can be anything more than a talker of conservatism.
He is a RINO and will not govern as a Reagan bigtent conservative.
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
The ‘Mittens’ term been around for a while. I’m not sure it’s meant to be all that insulting.
jazz_piano on July 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Amen. I am sick of playing “loyal GOP dog” and vote for yet another RINO. Enough, already. McCain in 2008 was the last straw.
If a conservative is not nominated in 2012, I will not vote Republican. Period. So if the open primaries force Romney or Huckabee down our throats, I will stay home.
Norwegian on July 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Yeah, it was Romney buttboy Hugh Hewitt who used it first I think to describe female supporters of Romney.
Of course, Romney supporters are so thinskinned that any term used is conserider “derogatory”… Give me a break
Norwegian on July 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Is this really true? Does he have any female advisors, or women working for him? I never considered this before. Can anyone tell us whether or not Romney employs women in positions of authority?
atheling on July 21, 2009 at 12:30 PM
It’s not. It’s funny how some people jump all over Palin supporters for defending her yet have no qualms about doing the same for Romney.
Politics is a nasty business … if your candidate doesn’t inspire heated discussions, then they’re probably not worth the effort.
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You mistake the target of my comment. It is directed only at right2bright.
scrub_oak on July 21, 2009 at 12:32 PM
***
NO MORE RINOS! Close all Republican primaries to keep dimocrats and indies from picking our candidates for us.
***
SARAH’CUDA for POTUS–JOHN BOLTON for VP. They are the only real conservatives who can win that I see in the arena. And I think Sarah can eviscerate the left pols–it shouldn’t be much harder than field dressing a moose.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on July 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Right2bright, you are one of the worst offenders and cannot let one good thing said about a GOP candidate stand if it was not said about Palin.
Sometimes children upon hearing compliments of their siblings have to interject, me too, I can do that only better.
You may rationalize that you are “revealing” qualities of candidates you do not support but you are instead trying to build up your candidate by tearing down a perceived rival. Vetting requires looking at the best as well as the worst. You are not vetting. You are trying to destroy. Its easy to see through your criticisms.
No one is running, and the possibility exists that your Palin may not run at all and in the end back someone else, even Romney. Its possible. But you will have burned too many bridges to support Palin in that effort. Support your candidate, that is good. But destroying all other fellow Republicans is bad form. Romney doing well is not a threat to Palin. Relax.
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
GOP MEME: Mrs. Palin, shut your mouth, get to the back of the line. It’s the establishment candidate’s turn. Oh, and Mrs. Palin, while your back there, could you please raise money for us…….nobody really likes us right now.
portlandon on July 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I await a similar comment from you when someone criticizes Palin.
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Romney’s First name is actually Willard. Would you rather he be called Willard, or Mitt, or Romneycares?
portlandon on July 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
No women in any leadership capacity in authority OVER the male because it remains strictly a patriarchal society. The other problem most Americans would have with his mindset is the prohibition of questioning the authority of his society’s authoritarians. Finally, there’s the legacy of Mitt’s legislative boondoggle, Massachusetts’ tax mandated CommonWealth Health Care. The gold leaf finish is pealing before he got his ticket.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Do you guys really believe Mitt has problems with woman in authority? He seems much more pragmatic than that to me.
littleguy on July 21, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Vetting requires looking at the best as well as the worst.
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Why is Mitt Romney donating money to Representative who voted YES to the cap and trade bill?
BPD on July 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
littleguy on July 21, 2009 at 12:46 PM
“Do you guys really believe Mitt has problems with woman in authority? He seems much more pragmatic than that to me.”
I doubt he’d reject Palin as his VP simply because she’s female.
Whether or not Mitt would be Palin’s VP would be his own choice to make. It would bother him as much as anyone who wants the #1 spot.
But, as I’ve always contended consistently, it is the PLATFORM that needs to be substantiated now, not the candidate for some future ticket.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM
In response:
Please prove that statement.
I dont’ remember Gov. Palin ever saying anything vulgar about either Mitt, Huck, or even Ron Paul.
Put your money where your mouth is.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM
The old expression in politics is ‘the perception becomes the reality.’ It is not I who says that Mitt Romney is not perceived to as CONSERVATIVE as Palin and Huckabee-it is the GOP conservatives and conservatives themselves.
Here are some FAVORABLE stats from past and current polls regarding Romney’s conservative credentials:
1)From the Pew Research poll taken in mid-June:
MITT SARAH
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS 61 80
WHITE EVANGELICALS(R) 54 84
OTHER EVANGELICALS(R) 59 67
ALL REPUBLICANS 57 73
2)JULY 20, 2009 PPP POLL
ALL REPUBLICANS 54 76
ALL CONSERV (INCL DEMS + IND) 53 73
3)RASMUSSEN POLL July 7, 2009
MITT HUCK SARAH NEWT
VOTING INTENTIONS:
EVANGELICALS 17% 35% 21% 16%
ATTEND CHURCH MORE THAN
ONCE A WEEK 11 41 20 13
FAVORABLES/UNFAVORABLES
F UF
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS
HUCK 89 8
PALIN 84 15
NEWT 74 22
ROMNEY 67 25
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Liz Cheney worked on his campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser.
redwhiteblue on July 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I’m no Mitt hater but if that’s his strategy he deserves to lose.
aikidoka on July 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM
You seem not to be too rational….
If you think me promoting Mitt to be a great VP or be a perfect person for a high profile cabinet post is tearing someone down, I cannot meet your expectations.
McCain is a better leader then Mitt, so is Huck, Mitt is great (as I have stated for a couple of years now) at what he can do…one thing he cannot do is win a national election.
When I compare Mitt to Palin, that is like comparing LeBron James to Kobe Bryant…something that you sensitive people don’t get. Kobe has more court sense then James, does that make James inferior? No, just inferior to Kobe.
You are comparing to greats, one is not as great as the other…it does not diminish the other in relation to the rest of the field.
Man, you guys are sensitive.
When combating liberals, no one, no liberal can stand in the same room as Romney, he is far superior…but that does not make him the best Republican, only one of the best.
You go back the last 18 months, to 2 years and try to find where I did not think the that Mitt would not be qualified for the “next” to highest position (actually there was one post where an out of control Mormon was ranting and I jerked his chain and disrespected Mitt, just for the entertainment value of watching a nutcase rant). The highest position, he can’t obtain, he has others more qualified before him.
When he can draw, like Palin, 15,000 and standing room only on a consistent basis, then he moves into the big leagues. Until then, he has to take the back seat to Palin.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
And just to pacify the sensitive…that is not a “right or wrong” the women not in leadership is just a fact.
Everyone can judge that how they seem fit…
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Little correction here. I believe as governor he appointed more female judges than any previous Massachusetts governor. He’s not some out of control sexist who fears women having positions of power.
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM
upinak on July 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Note well that neither Palin nor her supporters performed dirty campaign tricks, whereas Romney’s associates have fabricated whole cloth smear campaign robocalls.
Also, Palin never told anyone to promise whatever it takes to get the vote. Romney himself did, and still lost.
As per a comparison of legislation enacted by these different governors, Palin’s accomplished financial prosperity for Alaska negotiating with the biggest American industry and neighboring nation for the natural gas pipeline. Whereas Mitt’s universal health care law has hospitals suing the state for not paying their contracted bills with the mandated tax funds. Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years.
Between Palin and Romney, Romney reflects the economic brilliance of Obama.
It’s the conservative platform that needs focus. Rinos have attached their Trojan Horse to our GOP platform and wheel it about in parade.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM
from Rusty at C4P:
“From my post on Romney’s PAC contributions to other candidates, please note that he gave money to THREE of the EIGHT Republicans who voted FOR the cap and trade legislation. The three are Mike Castle (Delaware); Mark Kirk (Illinois); and Dave Reichert (Washington)…”
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Okay, thanks. I guess it’s a non issue.
atheling on July 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM
The women within both the Catholic and the Mormon church are given positions of authority, just not positions of authority over the authorities. There have always been organizations for women and children that are led by females in Mitt’s culture. Interestingly as evolution goes, Catholic nuns were provided callings in their church educational system long before Mormon women were afforded positions.
To say that Mitt is stunted by the old ways, though, is without merit. He isn’t about to let old prejudices hold him back, particularly when he wants others to grant the same for him.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I think something can be said for Romney having to work with a veto-proof Democrat supermajority in Massachusetts. Its not exactly like there was any way for him to lay down the law on their spending, he did as good as just about anyone could have in his position, including Palin. She had enough trouble dealing with the Democrat minority in the red state she governed. She did a good job but people are way too hard on Romney and never seem to take that into account.
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
What do you expect from a guy who has flip-flopped on everything from abortion to guns to taxes? As we have said several times before, Romney is a RINO. He may at anytime pretend to be a conservative, but his record tells a different story.
Norwegian on July 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Ugh. I can’t believe he donated to those guys over the ulta-conservative Democrats they are going to run against!
They ARE conservative Democrats, right? Some real Illinois/Delaware Blue Dogs? …
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Romney financially supports the lead Congressional RINO who supports abortion, EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, and Al Gore’s ecolunacy and CAP AND TAX! Take a look at Mike Castle’s committees and think twice about the federal agenda Romney is funding.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Ultra-conservative. Damn typos.
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Mark Kirk (Illinois) and Dave Reichert (Washington)
What rationale did these guys profess for voting Cap&Trade? Or did they just duck and “reset”?
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Oh geez!! I know several people who stayed home in 2008 and look where that self-righteousness got us.
I don’t want to hear it.
Oink on July 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Tell BPD (is that short for Boston Police Dept?) that I was pretty shocked at that myself. I presume you are referring to Reichert. But that cap and trade bill came after the donation and Reichert pretty much disappointed everyone. But coming from King county, a democrat stronghold, he had to look like a tree-hugger to the folks back home who elected him. I don’t know how a Republican won that district at all and must have been a fluke. Still, the guy really shocked and disappointed the right. There were plenty of grounds to oppose C&T that would easily be justified to the constituents. We know that Romney and all conservative voices on the right do not support that C&T bill currently under consideration because it is a job killer and ineffective at limiting greenhouse gases. Reichert probably figured he could vote for it because it had no chance of passing the Senate. I hate that kind of voter manipulation because it isn’t leadership, its figuring out where his voters want to go and taking them there. Guess it takes more courage than Reichert could muster to vote against the home crowd.
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I was against it, before I was for it.
AP, after slogging thru this Cynthia McKinney-like thread, I’m all for those different levels on this blog site.
and, Salty Balls to you know who.
luvstotango on July 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Balls !!!
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Actually, I voted in 2008, but it didn’t matter. At some point you gotta say stop. Why vote for Romney in 2012, Huckabee in 2016, Crist in 2020, etc, still lose the election and just move the GOP leftwards to Democrat Lite?
Sooner or later we have to take a stand and say enough is enough with these RINOs.
Norwegian on July 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
No correction needed…what I stated was I don’t think he would take the number 2 spot behind Palin…and I listed both that I don’t think he respects her, and that his faith does not put women in leadership roles…yes, I know they let them run some things.
No one should argue with any sense of reality that his faith does not allow women positions of leadership…that is how he is raised. I am sure he acknowledges women in leadership, outside of his faith…so you tell me, how many branches, wards, stakes are headed by women, how many branches, wards, and stakes has he worshiped in that have been led by women.
That’s all I am saying, given a choice, he chooses men to lead…but in politics you have to have women.
Don’t make such a big deal, his whole upbringing has been in a faith that has put men first as leaders…I am just saying based on the way he allowed others to trash Palin, how he stood mute, and his desire to be number 1, he won’t be Palin’s sidekick.
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Norwegian, please don’t ever consider staying home. At the very least we’ll have more influence over a RINO than we do with the Marxist in there now. A RINO is better than that anyday.
Oh … Balls!!!
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Good.
Then after Palin defeats Mittens, I expect you to close ranks to defeat Obama.
You heard it here first at HA.
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Standing on principle but losing is better than trashing your principles to be Dem-Lite.
Let’s stop selling our souls to be elected.
Let’s stand by our priniciples, persuade others, and still win like Reagan did.
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Why don’t you just get behind the real deal in Sarah and then you don’t have to worry about anybody staying at home?
What is with you people?
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM
He should have voted against it anyway even it if hurt him politically. He should do his best to stand by principles.
It benefits us not if you sell your soul to be DemLite.
What is this ridiculous attitude with winning at ANY cost?
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
???????? I am behind Palin, but why would I want to give the marxists another victory? I voted for McCain although he wasn’t my choice.
I get as frustrated as anyone else but I’m not going to lay down just because my candidate doesn’t win. I understand Norwegian’s feeling completely. I just don’t want to give them another win.
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I wouldn’t care if she had a rally that brought in 150,000 people if all of them were going to vote for anti-Obama no matter what anyway. The people who attend rallies are The Base. I care more about convincing some wavering Moderates that the Republican candidate isn’t a joke and would be better than President Government.
Speedwagon82 on July 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
And this is why we lose.
Instead of putting blinders on and running 110% to the finish line, we constantly look over our shoulders and lose focus and end up letting the MSM define us and bully us, and pick our candidate therebey becoming DemLite.
Telling us to vote for Mitt because he is not Obama is NOT the path to turning the country away from Socialism.
This is HotAir FCOL, not ModeratesforaDemLiteAmerica.
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM
You are already on your way to defeat.
Moderates have NO rallying cry.
I’m not gonna sit around and let the ‘moderates’ decide everything. I’m gonna convince the moderates on why libertarian and conservative values work and pull them more towards that.
Sapwolf on July 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
There’s the rub. You’re willing to work to convince them. Squishes just want someone everyone will like so they don’t have to work at anything, but just pull the lever and go home to watch American Idol.
atheling on July 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I like your spirit Sapwolf.
Geochelone on July 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Isn’t it The Base that will vote in the primaries? To run for President, one must first win the nomination.
littleguy on July 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Just released data from the PPP poll yesterday:
Of moderate Republicans-favorabilities:
Palin 64%
Newt 57%
Huck 53%
Mitt 45%
NB:Mitt doesn’t appear to be doing that well with moderate Republicans either.
By the way just 27% of the GOP is moderate and it makes up about 10% of the overall electorate.
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Speedwagon82 at July 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Sarah Palin not only leads in favorables among all Republicans (76%) but also leads among moderate Republicans favorables (64%) while Huckabee is at 53% and Romney at 45%. That is pretty impressive by any standards.
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
+1
IlikedAUH2O on July 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Thanks. I love good news. Plus Barry’s poll numbers are worse than Carter’s. Its on Drudge.
BARRY IS LOWER THAN CARTER…Pass it on.
Geochelone on July 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM
And those rallies do that, the wave of excitement does transfer over…look who is President to see proof.
If people chose, rational, facts only, objective, unbiased, then we would not have Obama as a president.
The fact is, you need that “it” factor. And those “open” minded, “clear thinking”, moderates vote for the same “it”…
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Good lord. We lose because we don’t have the balls to fight as dirty and as viciously the leftists do. That’s why we lose.
I will fight for Palin but … but, in the event she doesn’t get or want the nomination you want me not to vote for whoever the Republican candidate might be??
I like you Sap but that is suicide. This is how we ended up with Obama.
darwin on July 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
right2bright on July 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Nice writing and a couple of good observations. However, drawing a crowd just means supporters who care or are interested enough to show up. It sure isn’t winning an election from a country that is addicted to the nanny state, laps up the media portraits and mostly lacks the virture which Governor Palin exudes. A lot of random
factors in play but Mitt is it.
Speaking of which, I love the ‘Mittens’ joke. The Dems would still be saying BO stinks if The One was a conservative. Some poeple. But look at me. I can’t get over the proclaimed savior.
IlikedAUH2O on July 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Electing moderate Republicans is worse than electing liberal democrats, because moderate Republicans enact and protect liberal Democrat systems and deny reform a foothold. I’m tired of that “half a loaf is better than none”, it’s like asking me if I want a steak from a steer that died of bloody flux…or one that’s still coughing?
Chris_Balsz on July 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Chris_Balsz on July 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I’m with you but as Rush says he has no objection to moderate Republicans voting for conservative candidates.
Sarah is doing well with all aspects of the GOP. Why do think she scares the s**t our of the Far Left and the RINO’s?
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM
There is one possibility for a third party. After an election, we would need the conservative candidates to leave the GOP and join a third party whatever it is. And it is best to do together to show solidarity.
2 years later, do the same thing, unless the 3rd party is really doing well at that point. It may come down to election by election basis.
jeffn21 on July 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I like Rush’s idea better. Why should conservative Republicans leave the party? He suggested that Colin Powell, Meghan McCain and John McCain leave the party instead so ‘we can get our party back’.
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Powell may have to form his own party, since he couldn’t even bring himself to vote for his very good friend John McCain.
littleguy on July 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Need to read thru the comments though there are too many!
I will say this tho:
The Republican Party has to change the rule of presidential primaries to count only in US states. Territories do count too!
Obama/Clinton primary was held in Puerto Rico. PR has an 86% approx. of voters every 4 years; the Clintons campaigned very well, good organization with the PR Dems there. First Hillary, then Bill then all three were there for primary results. Hillary won by a landslide. Yeah and they went to poorest parts of PR and gave speeches.
Obama? Well no Michelle, no girls, just solo dancing salsa in Old San Juan, with a huge barricade and security. See, his aura is good enough to hypnotize the gullible.
All US Territories can participate and bring a different outcome either way, depending on how each presidential candidate gets prepared on each US Territory matters, and presidential image.
Of course Sarah is my girl all the way, whatever she decides to do; to me Romney I need to get to know a bit better; Huckster I dunno if he has his state’s support b/c there’s hard feelings towards him when he raised taxes as Governor of Arkansas. Arkansas alone should be polled; it’d be interesting.
The other Governors are talked about but no serious talk on a national level. I want Boehner in along with Palin; those two won’t bow to nobody.
My concern when I bring such a right-winged Republican ticket is that independent voter. Y’all might be concerned about that but I don’t want RINO’s or independents on the main ticket. Democrats don’t do that, why should we?
ProudPalinFan on July 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Convincing moderates, is a McCain Redux disaster film. Not many thinking people will be staying home after three more years of BO’s Caligularian agenda.
Getting conservatives to leave their home and family, is a miracle in itself, on Palin’s part. She’s a star.
I say, throw
cautionballs to the wall, and go with Sarah. She will get the masses out if her messsage is like Reagan’s.luvstotango on July 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I like Mitt, he’s a competent executive and lord knows we could use one. I think the feeling on the part of many of us palin supporters though is that we’ve had enough of nominating the guy who’s “turn” it is, just so he can get smoked in the general. Obviously. Palin has created a ton of excitment among the base that Mitt can’t, its not his style. His health care debacle in mass also gives me pause.
All the well meaning but clueless beltway conservatives like Fred Barnes and Krauthammer, etc etc ad nauseum, Talking about how we have to appeal to moderates and independents are completely missing what has happened the last couple election cycles. Republicans need to worry less about losing independents and more about losing republicans ….the voters we are hemorrhaging are not coming from the middle, they are coming from the base, and that ain’t good. We ran the most moderate candidate in the GOP’S history and he got smoked. 7 million of Bush’s voters, Bush’s white, rural, conservative christian voters.. simply stayed home last cycle. Palin can bring them back, pure and simple. Polls have become nonsensical and meaningless because the electorate ahs become so polarized and balkanized if you will….that if the sample group doesn’t demographically match the actual turnout, the poll is hopelessly skewed. turnout wins elections, and Palin can bring them out.
johngalt on July 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Well said, and exactly right, johngalt.
Chocolate rum balls to you! Cheers.
luvstotango on July 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Oh, please, it’s too early for 2012 polls …… What a waste of time and effort.
gstrickler on July 21, 2009 at 6:17 PM
people are way too hard on Romney and never seem to take that into account.
thecountofincognito on July 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
LOL sob story
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I wonder how many conservatives voted 3rd party? Add that to the 7 million who sat home…
atheling on July 21, 2009 at 6:27 PM
I like Rush’s idea better. Why should conservative Republicans leave the party? He suggested that Colin
bwahahahaha
Power Line today featured a great historical account of the Republican Party divided between Douglas and Lincoln, and the rationale it took from Lincoln to eliminate the defunct “middle-ground” given the house divided speech that changed the world. Great read.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Agreed unless determining platform that is the ultimate determination.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Staying home and not voting is at least as corrupt as being stuck on stupid.
Work to promote the conservative platform and network.
Be educated on many candidates, and know who stands on your platform and who is opposed to your platform, and the degrees between and the alliances surrounding you.
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I am one of the 72% who approve of Palin. I would approve of many Republicans if asked. However, I saw a unique ability in Romney to lead ten years ago long before there was a Palin. Romney has not disappointed and has a record of success in promoting personal responsibility and individual liberty. I trust the guy. And I would just love to see that guy debate the One and turn him into a zero. I hope Romney decides to run. But if not, I can see myself supporting a number of others, including Palin. We have some good conservatives out there.
Lori on July 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Drudge has a link to newsweek.com interviewing Romney on Obamacare:
[boldface in the original]
That’s not a guy who’d rather the federal government butt out. Nor is it a guy who thinks he had a sweet deal going but the liberals botched it up, as has been claimed for Romneycare on these forums.
This is a wonk from the middle of the road, who doesn’t mind the federal government taking over, as long as it delegates properly. Sure you’ll be delegated a bit of freedom back…
Chris_Balsz on July 21, 2009 at 8:12 PM
The lesson we should definitely take away from last year is NEVER EVER EVER EVER pick a guy who is as old and unhealthy looking as McCain. If the ticket had been Romney/Palin, I doubt she would have gotten half as much dirt digging into her background. McCain should have known his VP pick would be scrutinized more than any other in living history because of his age and his focus on the need for experience in the White House.
Speedwagon82 on July 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Speedwagon82 on July 21, 2009 at 8:25PM
Let’s get real. Nobody else but the maverick John McCain would have ever chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. You know it and I know it.
I have criticized McCain often but never will I criticize him for his choice of Palin. Ironically the ultimate RINO may go down in history as the savior of Reagan conservatism.
technopeasant on July 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM
If the republicans fight the democrats with the same vigor as they fight each other, they will not lose any election.
bayview on July 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Amazing with over 1400 posts there is still more to discuss; and I would like to return to the topic of the thread and point out certain aspects of the poll:
1)The gap between Obama and Palin now (48-42) is 1 point less than the Nov 2008 vote (53-46). This proves conclusively that Palin was a major factor in keeping McCain in the game after the financial meltdown and not what many negative Leftists suggest, a drag on the ticket.
2)This result proves that the Rasmussen poll taken on July 7th showing Palin with 24% to Romney’s 25% was no fluke and that Sarah is definitely a major player.
3)What the result does show however is that both Romney and Palin have benefited from a slide in Obama’s poll numbers. I would speculate that Obama might have a double digit lead over Palin and about a 8 point lead over Romney if not for his own misfortune
4)In a matchup with Obama at PPP polling Obama wins indies 47-41 against Palin. Rasmussen confirms this with the exact breakdown. Think about it-somebody out of the national spotlight for almost 8 months matched up against a man who has received blanket coverage over that time through all aspects of the MSM is only trailing him by 6 points (PPP poll shows a 8 point margin) amongst indies who you could say are not biased towards either. I think that is the most remarkable stat of them all.
5)Where the discrepancy comes in is with how Romney polls with indies in a matchup against Obama. Rasmussen has it at 48-41 for Romney while the PPP poll has it at 43-42 Romney and in the actual overall matchup 49-40 for Obama rather than Rasmussen’s 45-45 result. if there is a statistical error in the poll here is where it might lie.
6)And with regards to Palin what you have to bear in mind with this result is that this occurred a full 2 weeks after the word of the resignation and with the poll result uncovered by Rasmussen that 40% of Republican voters say Palin’s decision to resign as governor of Alaska will hurt her chances of winning the party’s presidential nomination in 2012 (taken on July 7th). I hate to criticize Rasmussen because I consider him an outstanding pollster but perhaps he should have waited 2 weeks (~July 17th) to conduct this poll so that Republicans could have gotten over the shock of the announcement. I suspect it is now much lower than 40%, with what has transpired over the last 2 1/2 weeks with many political pundits are ready to issue a mea culpa.
technopeasant on July 22, 2009 at 12:03 AM
maverick muse on July 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM
A Palin fan giving a lecture on sob stories…I suppose he could have just quit when it got tough.
thecountofincognito on July 22, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Romney is the man for the job.
My reasoning:
We elected no-experience Obama and expected the country to run smoothly.
Stop and think how strange our collective expectation was.
How can we expect no-experience Palin to run the country smoothly?
Eventually the law of natural consequences will intervene if we keep electing leaders just because they excite a certain segment of the population but are unskilled at running things.
Romney on the other hand has a proven record at running very big organizations and is the right man at the right time.
scotash on July 22, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 Next »