Politics Daily: How Palin could win the nomination
posted at 4:31 pm on November 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
She told Oprah that it’s “not on my radar screen right now,” but … c’mon. It’s on everyone’s radar screen. Walter Shapiro games out the path to victory: Sweep to victory in Iowa on the evangelical vote, concede New Hampshire to Romney, then throw everything she’s got at the deep-red linchpin of South Carolina. Win there and you’ve got big mo heading into winner-take-all Florida; if Huck, Mitt, and a few others are still hanging around by then, they might split the anti-Palin vote several ways and she could squeak to victory with less than 40 percent, giving her likely unstoppable momentum the rest of the way. Easy peasy!
Except for this. From ABC/WaPo’s new poll:
By comparison, only 42 percent said they definitely wouldn’t vote for the highly polarizing Hillary Clinton in July 2006. Those “definitely not” numbers will soften up a bit over time, but (a) it’s not, shall we say, optimal to start with a clear majority of the electorate dug in against you, and (b) I’m surprised at how small the “definitely” faction is. Statistically, it makes sense: If 40 percent of the country considers itself conservative and, say, 15-20 percent of those people are devoted Sarahcuda supporters, then you’re right in the ballpark, but it’s a testament to how vocal Palin fans are in defending her that their numbers seem a lot stronger than they actually are. More ABC:
Today 43 percent of Americans express a favorable opinion of Palin overall, while 52 percent see her unfavorably. Favorability is the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity; in politics, where majorities win, it’s trouble when it goes negative, as it’s been for Palin since October 2008…
Palin moreover fails a basic hurdle on the road to the White House, were she to choose to take it: Just 38 percent of Americans see her as qualified to serve as president; 60 percent think she’s not qualified for the job…
Just under a quarter of Republicans rule out supporting her for president; that rises to half of independents and three-quarters of Democrats. And 61 percent of Republicans see Palin as qualified for the presidency – an underwhelming score in her own party, and one that falls to 37 percent of independents and 22 percent among Democrats.
The silver lining: Some of these numbers are actually an improvement over recent polls. PPP’s latest temperature check on 2012 had her favorables at 36/51, with independents split 34/48. ABC’s poll, by contrast, has her up to 45 percent approval among indies, a number that’s bound to rise as the backlash to Hopenchange statism pulls more of them towards the right. Maybe the book buzz is starting to polish her image? As for that 60 percent figure on qualifications, it too is an improvement (a double-digit improvement, in fact) over CNN’s notoriously gruesome poll result from last month. The bad news? CNN re-polled the question this week to coincide with her book launch and the current number who say she’s unqualified is still 70 percent, with only 29 percent of independents bucking the trend. (A majority of Republicans, 54/44, think she’s ready to serve, but 63 percent say the same about Mitt and Huck by comparison.)
Long story short, as things stand, she’s a threat to win the GOP nomination but an almost certain loser in the general election unless economic conditions have deteriorated to the point where any Republican would be a threat to knock off Obama. But if any Republican would stand a good chance of winning, why would the GOP nominate the one Republican who would galvanize the Democrats in opposition? The more beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation will be to nominate an inoffensive “electable” candidate like Romney and make the election a referendum on The One’s record; the less beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation to roll the dice and nominate a lightning rod like Palin who can draw media attention away from Obama. Exit question one: Er, why would she (or anyone else) want to run if Obama doesn’t look beatable, i.e. if the economy starts coming back and unemployment begins to decrease? Exit question two: If Obama does look beatable, what can the RNC do to tilt the table away from Palin and towards some more “electable” candidates? Follow the Shapiro link and read the end for a few ideas.
Update: Ah, I missed this earlier. Even more evidence, this time via Rasmussen, that the book might be helping her rebound: Among likely voters, her favorables are 51/43. That’s starkly different from the poll of polls at Pollster.com, but likely voters are ultimately the only ones who matter.
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 2 3 Next »
If the GOP listens to Dems and GOP elites, we’ll wind up with a ticket of Frum and McCain (Meggie).
BuckeyeSam on November 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Screw these polls.
I’m holding off and waiting for the MSM to pick the appropriate GOP candidate.
Again.
fogw on November 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
First, the economy will not be coming back and employment is only going to continue to tank, for some time to come.
If you think the fear is palpable now, by 2012 it will be the defining issue. The candidate who can explain the way out will win, and it won’t be Obama.
That notwithstanding, the people are going to be so tired of this one-hit wonder, and his omnipresence, they will be ready to elect even Allahpundit.
And, this doesn’t factor in the potential disasters awaiting in the national security arena, i.e., the results of KSM putting the country on trial in NYC, yet another one or more terrorist attacks, Iran nuking Israel, you name it.
Nor is the healthcare takeover or Cap and Tax factored in.
In short, Obama’s toast, perhaps in his own primary. He’s got LBJ and Carter, writ large on his forehead.
Which, I think, will invigorate conservatives and independents to takeover or take back the Republican Party, and they’ll nominate whomever they perceive best to drag us out of the Obama ditch.
TXUS on November 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Thank you.
I kind of meant in an over all sense, but since we have sort of made it through almost a year we really do have to think of it in terms how much time we have left with the BCO.
Juno77 on November 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
+1
I am a huge Sarah fan anyway.
However, I would vote for her just to watch the left collectively come unhinged.
__________
RJGatorEsq. on November 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
No. Friggin’. Way. While I agree that she shouldn’t whine about the media, they are NEVER going to “like” her or “admire” her simply because she starts buttering them up. That’s one thing conservatives HAVE to get through their thick skulls: THE MEDIA WILL ALWAYS HATE YOU!!!!
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
What I know is that I saw Juan Williams and David Brooks get visually upset about her mere existence yesterday – like 3rd grade boys getting knocked to the pavement by the aggressive girl classmate. I also hear Christopher Hitchens going after her with venom he normally saves for Mother Teresa. Allahpundit is not as flushed with freudian anger as these guys seem to be, but he’s also got Sarah on the brain.
All this (plus the army of reporters AP sent after her book instead of say, i dunno, something like, umm a 2000 page Constitution-busting healthcare bill) tells me she’s completely in control of this Palin/Media psycho-sexual-political hysteria. She’s in a real position now to do something much better than run for Prez. She could make it her mission to drive the left-wing media into full-on dementia. All it would take now is some too-good-to-pass-up Rovian Texas National Guard fake scandal for her to expose her enemies out in the open. Then she could unload on them in perpetuam with everything she’s got until they call her mommy.
I.M. Shatner on November 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Egads, if that’s the case, I hope that “2012″ movie is accurate…
jana on November 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Would that be the same media that shills for Obowma???
Just asking…
Roy Rogers on November 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
When one apologizes for speaking the truth they have in essence surrendered.
thomasaur on November 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
She needs all of the press she can get. To be adversarial with the press right now would not help at all. She’s getting hammered by them enough now as it is. There will be time to get to the press later.
Guest1.1 on November 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM
That’s “MS. MOMMY” to those vultures…
jana on November 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM
thomasaur on November 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
She does not have to appologize for speaking the truth, Maybe more for the venue she did it in. She won a lot of minds at the convention but she created an enemy in the press.
Guest1.1 on November 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
She’ll get press no matter what, and the coverage will only become positive if she’s no longer perceived to be a threat. No, she shouldn’t be adversarial, but she shouldn’t become a press suck-up either. She should just be herself. That’s what went wrong last year.
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Question to all of us that post here. Have any of you been polled for anything related to Sarah?
ProudPalinFan on November 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM
More power to her but she as an uphill battle.
While I get your point….polling in general is good science.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I have never seen so many Elitists, political and otherwise, so concerned about one woman gaining national prominence in my life. Waitasec…I take that back. Something like this happened once before. I was still in college and some “foolish old man” was going to run for President. He caught a lot of He@@, too.
kingsjester on November 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Never retreat, advance advance advance! The SRM is finished and should not be given any slack.
thomasaur on November 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I agree, No suck up, but no antagonizing either, put out an Olive Branch. If they shred it, That is just more fodder for her later.
Guest1.1 on November 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM
The press chose her as their enemy , not the other way around.
the_nile on November 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Palin wins the GOP nomination by performing at a higher level than her competition. It’s as plain and simple as that. I assume in the 2012 primary we will once again have a group of candidates that will campaign across the country to make their cases to the primary voters, and then square off in debates that will viewed my millions. Here we will see whether Palin will rise or fall.
Hey AP shake off that Rasmussen poll. I am sure it is an outlier.
chief on November 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM
the_nile on November 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM
In her speech she attacked first. I loved it so did many others. Without that though, the complexion of the race may have been a little different.
Guest1.1 on November 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I don’t see why Palin is an “certain loser in the general election.”
McCain was a certain loser yet we still voted for him. However, it was not the conservative base that lost this election, it was the moderate crowd that drank the koolaid. I think that if we continue for the next three years on the path that Barack-O has paved in his first year, the Republicans will take the White House again.
cannonball on November 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM
The question is not “is” she qualified, but will she be qualified in the eyes of the voters in 2012? She will never have Romney’s business experience and her gubanatorial (Where’s the blasted spell check on this thing?) experience will always be less than his, Huckabee’s and Pawlenty’s. Nevertheless, who knows what the voters will consider qualified in 2012? Since this administration is making President Carter look good by comparison, the ground may well be prepared for a Reaganesque return to the White House. No one talks about “Bedtime for Bonzo” and “Raygun” now, but they sure as heck were back in the late Seventies.
Give her the same amount of time President Obama enjoyed in running for the White House and my money is on her coming through with a pretty outstanding understanding of the issues important to most Americans at the end of the day. Her political instincts are good, she’s already right on the issues, and she clearly has no problem dusting it up with the opposition. What are they going to do to her? She’s already been through the worst media ringer ANY political candidate has been put through.
As with all matters political, timing will be everything, and she can’t afford any more incidents that feed the media’s caricature, but given where the Left is currently taking this country, I think independents and conservative Democrats will slowly head back our way over the next couple of years, and then her rather prescient desciption of President Obama and his likely (now, current) policies will decide them to give her another look.
Mongo Mere Pawn on November 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM
They had already attacked her after her first presentation.
She just counter attacked.
the_nile on November 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election. I would never call one of his polls an ‘outlier’.
technopeasant on November 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
She can\’t win IMHO. We should be spending energy trying to find someone outstanding to run. Someone with approval #\’s in the 70-80 range, someone with a stellar record and impeccable leadership qualifications, not someone who has quit a post and has drama following them everywhere they go. Or has to write a book to explain or justify themselves. And most of all, we need someone who can take our country back once they\’re in office. Because if you think Obama inherited a mess, imagine the things we\’ll have to try and undo once he gets out of office. Is there really no such candidate in the GOP? Really?
scalleywag on November 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
In her speech she stated that she was going to Washington to work for the citizens of America and not the special interst groups or the media. That being said the media is supposed to be the advocate for the citizens and not parties or lobbying groups, I see that as a challenge and not an attack.
thomasaur on November 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I was called by Quinnipiac last night and they asked all sorts of questions. None about Palin.
I wasn’t sure why they needed to know about my last bowel movement though. Oh well – civic duty.
I.M. Shatner on November 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I think we should pick the candidate whom the polls and the editorial boards like. We can’t go wrong with another McCain, right?
hawksruleva on November 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
This line of thinking got us McCain in 2008. No thanks.
Norwegian on November 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Yep. Everyone loved Maverick. He was the mainstream moderate’s mainstream moderate. A media darling that the media couldn’t wait to see in the White House. It was just like that wasn’t it. Weird how the last 6 weeks of the campaign the media decided he was BushHitlerBush Pt II: Electric Boogaloo. Almost like they wrote the script or something.
But David Brooks says Palin is “A JOKE”. Homeboy never got that the joke was on him last go around.
I.M. Shatner on November 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Well, I’m gonna sit on my thumbs and wait for the GOP to nominate another great, moderate, “inoffensive” candidate. /sarc
Anyway, 2010 is all I have in my sights right now. 2012 is over the horizon a ways.
pugwriter on November 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I think you just nailed it. That is why they hate her so much. She takes away the biggest club they have with which to beat the GOP.
Kafir on November 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Have we done away with those open primaries yet?
All I care about.
TexasDan on November 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM
What do diminutive yellowish-bluish prolate spheroids smell like just before they go rancid?
Stephen M on November 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM
I have. About 6 weeks ago. Didn’t recognize the polling outfit’s name though. I think I responded to the Sarah Palin question with the equivalent of “moderately favorable.”
IU_Conservative on November 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Did AP pay you to mention Meggie Mac in this thread?
TexasDan on November 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM
But David Brooks says Palin is “A JOKE”. Homeboy never got that the joke was on him last go around.
I.M. Shatner on November 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I’m convined that wowser KNOWS he is so wrong yet has to save face because he was so off the mark it’s horribly embarrassing.
Sorta what older, dopey Libs do. They HAVE TO know they’re wrong, but just don’t have the guts to admit they are because their whole persona will come crashing down.
Gob on November 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Yet again: polls 3 years out from election day are less than worthless for determining anything about the outcome of that election.
Harpazo on November 16, 2009 at 6:05 PM
3 more years like this one and Yogi Frikkin’ Bear will take 350 EV’s.
(and the year ain’t over yet…)
Bruno Strozek on November 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Pleeeeze…Put all those old, tired, washed-up GOP political “insiders” out to pasture………….
They don’t have a clue as to what attributes fly-over country voters seek in their candidates.
We’re SICK of Ivy League educated sexual-intellectuals (f*cking know-it-alls) who are long on academic credentials but who have never created a real job or met a payroll. There’s an overabundance of academic elites like the ones who ran the stock market and the economy into the sewer, costing the life and retirement savings of countless American middle class families. They DON’T deserve a second chance.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
bannedbyhuffpo on November 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Who are they asking? ABC/WaPo employees?
darwin-t on November 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM
“Did he say moderately favorable?”
“Yeah.”
“We don’t have that choice.”
“Put him down as “definitely would not.”
donh525 on November 16, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Word!
Ok AP, what are you gonna have to say for yourself the day after election day ’12 when Obama has absolutely, definitely beaten Mitt or Huck? Because all this Frumian poll juggling you’re doing now will all be for naught.
Dongemaharu on November 16, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Maybe Sarah should start bowing to everyone…
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on November 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I don’t question the poll numbers at all. In fact, with the dem’s, press, talk shows, and RINO’s all pounding on her abilities, personal life, and qualifications on an
hourlyminute by minute basis I’m surprised they are as high as they are.donh525 on November 16, 2009 at 6:29 PM
All she has to do is win the GOP primary. If the Paulists don’t support her and Romney gets NO challenges from the moderates to split his vote and Huckabee runs and splits the socon vote, then she could lose the primary.
Obama will be much weaker in 2012 due to his failures.
Assuming he does not pull to the middle or if we get another sinking in the economy or unemployment high, she will defeat him.
I believe the GOP and Indies will rally around the GOP nominy due to the fear of Obama and the growing government.
Sapwolf on November 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
There you go AP, lead with the crap, noise, hit whoring denials. Close with real numbers from real pollsters.
I was about to go on a rant when through the darkness a glimmer of light appeared. AP, thank you. Sincerely thank you because, without you, I wouldn’t ever hear anything about wapo or most of the former media and all of their “reporting” [I'm using reporting in the broadest possible meaing][reality would equate their efforts with the newstand digests reporting bat boy, elvis, and the unseen video of MJ being ordained.]
I promise to remember the numerous times you’ve taken one for the team. I promise not to pile on when some other HA commenter needs a little vent time.
Thanks AP, I need you.
Blacksmith8 on November 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM
I agree.
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM
The person you describe, if truly a conservative, would be so savaged by the media that the “approval numbers in the 70-80 range” would go bye-bye. Then he/she would have to write a book explaining him/herself afterward to try to counteract the merciless bashing. Then those who were in that 70-80% who approved of this person would join in the bashing because it would seem the cool thing to do. And on and on.
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM
You truly are the silliest troll that posts here.
Let’s see.
Barack Hussein Obama:
Thug “community organizer,” rabble-rouser “trainer.”
Wallowed in Chicago corruption.
Ran “education” foundation with anti-American murdering domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. (basically a front to channel millions to ACORN and other fringe groups)
State Senator of no special consequence. Set unofficial record for voting “present” most often. Won seat by having opponent “disqualified.”
U.S. Senator of little note. Served 143 days then went AWOL to run for POTUS, breaking a promise to Illinois voters. Won seat by pulling dirty tricks that forced opponent to withdraw.
Never run a city, never run a state, never run a lemonade stand. Never had private sector job. Has ZERO understanding of how business works.
“President” Worst POTUS in human history. Epic Fail. Makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.
Sarah Louis Palin:
City Councilwoman
Mayor (2 terms, term limited)
President, Alaska Council of Mayors
Ran for Lt Governor, lost
Chairman, Alaska Oil And Gas Conservation Commission. One of the most powerful jobs in the state. High focus on ethics. The AOGCC regulates oil, natural gas, and coal production. Also charged with safeguarding the environment.
Resigned, we all know why. Spent a little over a year taking down entire Republican party of Alaska leadership over massive corruption.
Ran Political Action Committee dedicated to grooming Conservative women to run for office.
Governor State of Alaska
Commander-in-Chief Alaska National Guard. (only NG on permanent deployment.) Her Air National Guard has routinely escorted Russian planes out of Alaskan air space.
In fact, they were decorated on her watch after escorting a number of Russian “Bear” bombers back over to Russia.
Commander-in-Chief Alaska Defense Force. A federally recognized state militia that can be called up as not only an axillary police force, but as a fighting force in time of war. They are part of Homeland Security’s action planning.
Members of the ADF fought the Japanese in WWII in the Aleutians, when the Japanese occupied Alaska.
Sarah Palin has fought the Obama administration who has cut off benefits and pensions to the surviving ADF WWII vets. Signed into law a measure that would pay these heroes until Obama can be forced to fund them.
Chairman Interstate Oil And Gas Compact Commission. A commission of oil and natural gas producing states that work together on issues concerning oil production and the environmental impact. This was done in addition to her role as Governor of Alaska.
Chairman National Governors Association’s Natural Resources Committee. Self explanatory.
Small business owner, including long time ownership of successful commercial fishing business, and the owner of a snow machine dealership.
Slowcart….are you really silly enough to keep trolling here with your nonsense?
Your dog just don’t hunt!
gary4205 on November 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Not me or anybody I know either. I think they have those phone cameras and they can see the bumper stickers from their basement.
Blacksmith8 on November 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
This isn’t surprising to those of us who’ve felt all along that she’d do well once people got the chance to become more acquainted with her.
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I was in high school I think I remember something about that. Whatever happened to him?
Blacksmith8 on November 16, 2009 at 6:38 PM
So the alternative is to throw up another boring-but-experienced squish that just might get the grudging approval of the NYT and WaPo editorial boards and enable an easy win for Teh One in 2012. There’s a spot in the RNC for you, Speedwagon82.
ddrintn on November 16, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Typical Jayhawk scum. You can’t even spell sarcasm can you?
Blacksmith8 on November 16, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Sorry but I think polls on any potential Presidential run by Palin this far out from 2012 aren’t really a good indication of how she would do. Give it twelve months, by then after the 2010 midterms and her impact on them is seen by the public and combined with the public opinion her book and the subsequent tour produces, then we may start to see an accurate picture in the polling about how Palin would do in a potential Presidential run.
In fact It wouldn’t surprise me if that is what team Palin is going to do themselves to see if it worth running in 2012. If the book tour and the work she puts in helping candidates for 2010 pays off and her numbers improve then she will run. If her numbers don’t improve then she wont. Basically the way I see it is that If Sarah Palin wins the GOP nomination for 2012 it will be because she earned it by working hard to gain the electorates trust and instill faith in her as a potential leader.
Hellrider on November 16, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Rush said today that Palin was not taking her book tour to the usual larger city routes. Instead she is choosing to take her book tour to the fruited plains where refugees from the big cities now live, and where the folks the Washington beltway despise live. No disrespect for you brave souls still living in big cities.
In any case, she is taking this to the people who are beyond ticked off at both parties. Like them or hate them, she is taking her book tour through places where independent voters are going to hear her speak, and have a chance to meet her up close and personal. She is going to make contact with Reagan voters of all stripes, and make contact with people she is going to need to volunteer to make her campaign smoke what we saw The Manchild do. There are far more disgruntled voters ready to elect someone who was not educated by Marxists at some Ivy League college.
What everyone keeps missing to me is that Mrs. Palin just seems to be a regular Jane American. She has family problems, struggled working several jobs to provide for the family, has in-laws, and simply has plain old fashioned common sense. Besides, she loves this country and the people that are in it. Something President Shout-Out just does not seem to feel towards us. And most importantly of all she does not need a teleprompter 24-7!
Polls bah humbug! It is not time yet to be living and dying by these polls.
freeus on November 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
thomasaur on November 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
It may have been a challenge But I do not think the media saw it that way.
holdfast on November 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I donot know if any of the following is true, just heard it and it made sense.
The air national guard of Alaska is our first line of defense against a Soviet missile attack. As Governor of Alaska that would have put Sarah in charge. Also as Governor and the “Commander In Chief” of the Alaska National Guard, she would have been privy to some National security information that Senator Obama would not have known about. Some how, I do not think it would have been “PC” to bring this up in the election. Again, I do not know if it is true. If it was true, I guess that would have been a little bit of experience Senator Obama did not have.
Guest1.1 on November 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
A more sensible opinion is that it’s too early to tell. Let’s see how she does in the primaries. There are primaries, you know. That’s where we get to see the candidates debate each other. Strange as it may seem some of us would like to see the candidates face off against each other before we declare a winner.
Basilsbest on November 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
America truly deserves eight years of Barack Obama.
Hawkins1701 on November 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
White supremacist raaaaacist!
OhioCoastie on November 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
She lacks sharp creases in her pants for him to drool over, the poor dear.
ya2daup on November 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
I disagree Gary, I think simplesimon and Norman Blitzer tie for that title :)
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Hogwash.
She has the leadership qualities, instincts and will go to experts when required and in her cabinet.
I along with the rest of the country DO NOT want a brainiac. We want an honest, brave leader who has libertarian/conservative values and shows she is not afraid to fight against the statists.
She is proving it.
If she wins the GOP primary, she will be POTUS.
Sapwolf on November 16, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I agree. If she decides to run, and I think she will, I have absolutely no doubt that she’ll get the nom and be elected president.
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Someone just linked to PalinForAmerica.com on her Facebook page… which is apparently a “draft Palin” kinda site for 2012. But I gotta say — someone out there loves her cause that site looks fierce.
rightheaded on November 16, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Don’t listen to ABC.
She has a 70% fav rate with the Right side.
btw, the real story is that mccain was a throw the election scumbag. he didnt have a message for Palin to go rouge on.
he did it for color or black skin – but it was a big scam as obambi is more Statist than he is black.
father on November 16, 2009 at 7:02 PM
What does AnninCA think of this. Hmmmmm?
darwin-t on November 16, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Methinks she just needs to keep her head down and get out in front of the public more and more. It will become obvious over time whether her status is rising or falling. If it\’s falling, she shouldn\’t run. If rising, then go for it. I\’m a supporter, but I feel she\’s like the GOP version of Hillary: she\’s really a polarizing figure and there are enough people that would vote against her, no matter what, that I think it would be difficult for her to win. She needs to demonstrate that the Tina Fey caricature is simply false. The only way she can do that is through media exposure over time.
PersonalLiberty on November 16, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Palin is by far the strongest Repub candidate; we can only hope that the boneheads now saying that she cannot win do not have enough inflence to get us another McCain or Bob Dole, both of whom I love, but they were losers from day one as far as the presidential race goes. I did public polling for over 3 years for major polling company and any of you that read these polls to now disqualify Palin have no idea about the dynamics of public policy sample and its pollings. Palin can win and my guess is that the other Repubs now on the screen will lose by at least 4%
georgealbert on November 16, 2009 at 7:11 PM
If you would have told me three years before the last presidential election that I would vote Republican, I would have said you’re crazy. At the same time, three years before the last election I would never considered voting for Hillary Clinton. Never. But I came to admire her grit and her passion as she tried to make a comeback during the primaries. I don’t care for her policies but I would sleep better at night if we didn’t have a misogynistic, race-baiting, Marxist in the White House as we do today. So current polls make for great reading and long threads but mean virtually nothing at this point. Palin is doing what needs to be done to repair the brand damage inflicted mostly by the media and the McCain campaign. The country will give her a second look. And remember, there is not a single Republican who can fill a stadium with supporters — except Palin. Start with the passion; let her explain her principles, policies, programs and prescriptions for recovering from four years of socialism; then win a few primaries. When you look like a winner, people jump on board. Americans are looking for leadership. I’m putting my money on the little point guard from Wasilla. She’s been a leader in every venue and position since she led her team to the state championship.
SleeplessinChicago on November 16, 2009 at 7:13 PM
+ 1 Trillion
‘Nuff said
darwin on November 16, 2009 at 7:15 PM
SP is a threat to an establishment that likes cushy jobs, elite titles and a light work load
all on the taxpayers backs
if SP does it, she will be obliged to none but the American people outside the beltway
Sonosam on November 16, 2009 at 7:17 PM
This is very true but was not presented to the public last year. Also, do not forget the missle defence batteries in AK. Check the site Blackfive (I think that’s it) they can conferm ^.
If Sarah doesnot run in ’12 the Rats win and we lose.
Everybody check the Oprah interview out, I know Oprah, to get a sense of the REAL SARAH.
Clyde5445 on November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
That would be kind of hard, since there are no real specifics given about the latest poll. The most basic question of course is, who are they polling. Polls of likely voters are well known to be more accurate than polls of registered voters, which in turn are more accurate than polls of just adults. I believe most of the polls we’ve seen are of adults. Besides the fact that the polls have been weighted pretty heavily to Democrats, which for someone the Democrats generally don’t like, such as Palin, is a huge factor.
I do note that Rasmussen shows a very different picture, and also that Rasmussen is a poll of likely voters, which is generally more accurate. Given the dearth of information about the poll this story is based on, it’s probably smartest to just go with the Rasmussen poll.
The obvious criticism, that people ignore the polls they don’t like, has some truth to it. Frankly, I wish the other polling organizations would quit playing games and stick to doing decent polls, rather than trying to get the result they’re looking for. These poor polls that oversample Democrats seem to be an epidemic lately.
tom on November 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM
I am sick and tired of hearing that Sarah doesn’t have the experience or she is not presidential material. Have you ever heard that said once about any man that has run for president no matter who it was? The evidence is sitting in the white house. It makes me want to bang my head against my desk to hear that. It looks like sexism to me. What else could it be? She’s been a governor. Huckabee’s been a governor. You didn’t hear that said about him. So what is the difference? Why is he OK and she’s not?
silvernana on November 16, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I’m sorry, am I suppose to believe a poll commissioned by ABC and the Washington Post? I do not need the east coast and west coast elites spoon feeding me. I will seek out my own information and make my own decisions. I have a degree in finance and economics. I make much better decisions than Barney, Nancy, Chris, Charles, Barry, Harry and all their merry men. I have not been contacted with regard to who I will vote for in the 2012 primary but if I am it will be one more vote for the definitely voting for Governor Palin.
ice princess on November 16, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Well said.
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM
LOL.
portlandon on November 16, 2009 at 7:57 PM
The sub-heading should be “How to ensure Obama’s re-election.”
Look, I’m generally not against you-all’s quest to get more “ideological purity” with regards to your GOP candidates for the 2010 election. I don’t really agree with the whole social conservative agenda, but I’m willing to backburner that if you guys find people who are fiscally conservative, small-government types.
But please, dear god, don’t let your newfound love for ideological purity allow Sarah Palin to get the nomination in 2012. PLEASE. I don’t dislike the woman, in fact she was the only one of the four individuals on the final Pres/VP tickets in 08 who I thought was likable and relatively genuine. But she’s a joke as a candidate. The best – the BEST – that you’re going to get out of independents, like me, who you need to win the election next year and in 2012, is that maybe we wind up giving her a nice favorability rating, in terms of whether we LIKE her or not.
That doesn’t mean we’d vote for her, or consider her a “real” candidate. There’s just no way she can overcome the damage already done.
Vyce on November 16, 2009 at 8:09 PM
I guess you can beconsidered an independent moron if you would votefor obama instead of SP
Sonosam on November 16, 2009 at 8:17 PM
That’s funny, thx for the link.
beachgirlusa on November 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Great line…!!!!!
jerrytbg on November 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM
She can\’t win IMHO. We should be spending energy trying to find someone outstanding to run. Someone with approval #\’s in the 70-80 range, someone with a stellar record and
Palin has approval in the high 70′s among ALL Republicans, not just the Conservative wing. The highest.
She also polls pretty well by indies.
gary4205 on November 16, 2009 at 8:30 PM
AP, your definition of “electable” appears to be the same as my definition of “faux conservative”. Therefore, I’m not interested.
I’m certainly not interested in a RINO ex-governor from a deep blue state who essentially invented ObamaCare. Why would I want that? Might as well have Obama for another four years.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Sarah Palin may not be POTUS material, but if we’re lucky, she may just save the GOP from itself.
Chris of Rights on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 PM
No, I wouldn’t vote for Barry.
But if the choice is Barry or Sarah, I’d probably just sit home. Many more would do the same. Probably more than that, though, would vote for Obama – even knowing what they’re getting into this time.
I want Republicans to choose a winner. Romney does seem like the best pick to me. At this point, though, I’m beginning to think I might even be able to stomach Huckabee, as much as he turns my stomach.
But Palin is a loser.
Vyce on November 16, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Vyce on November 16, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Yeah, you’re right, she’s through. Why it seems like just yesterday I remember Richard Nixon saying “this is my last press conference” after he lost the 1962 gubernatorial race in 1962. Never saw him again, did we?
And then there’s Reagan, the washed up, B-movie actor losing out to Gerald Ford in 1976. Another premature political obituary.
Oh, and let’s not forget Clinton’s 1988 speech to the Democrats’ convention where he put everyone to sleep. That certainly put an end to his career didn’t it?
The fact is I want a president with callouses. I want somebody who’s been knocked down and picked themselves up and charged on. I want someone who knows how to make a comeback. Never say never. I’m reminded of General McAuliffe’s message to the German Army’s call for surrender. His troops surrounded, McAuliffe’s one word response was “nuts.” Is that the kind of person I want leading our country? You betcha!
SleeplessinChicago on November 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM
This is true.
Sarah received high level briefings. Not sure of the exact level, it will never be disclosed, but at least as high as someone like Nancy Pelosi (second in line to the presidency) or the highest ranking members on the congressional national security committees.
One thing about it, she had something Obama, with his criminal associations, would have never gotten as a Senator.
She had shared command of the NG. Full command ADF.
There’s a video out there on You Tube of Lt General Craig E Campbell, the commander of the Alaska Guard lavishing praise on Sarah as the best C-I-C he had ever served under. Greta did the interview. This was during the election.
For what it’s worth, Sarah chose Campbell to replace Sean Parnell as Lt Governor when she stepped down and Parnell took over the governorship.
gary4205 on November 16, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Our boy Allahpundit will never, EVER run this, but here are 8 minutes of video that did not air today on the Oprah.
STRONG stuff. This is where she explains how she was able to write the book so fast. (something I have brought up for some time, BTW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQ5RmViwTg
gary4205 on November 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM
I’ll see darwin’s trillion, and raise it a trillion!
+ 2 trillion!
I was not a Hillary fan at any level, and still do not like what she stands for, politically. But came to at least respect her.
There’s a huge following for Sarah in Chicago. If she can make a dent there!
gary4205 on November 16, 2009 at 9:24 PM
I like Sarah, but she needs to make sure she can repair her image with independents before she considers a run. Otherwise, we’ve got another four years of this arrogant, ignorant, inept, incompetent administration. If you think he can do damage now, just wait until he has no re-election to look forward to.
ncconservative on November 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM
You want someone who quit the one major executive office position she was elected to? Who’s involved, whether she wants to be or not, in a tabloid-magazine feud with her son-in-law?
She’s considered a quitter and an intellectual lightweight, and in her case, I don’t think the criticisms levelled against her are so far off the mark. She’s damaged goods, and four years of campaigning isn’t going to change people’s minds enough to choose her over Obama, even if things continue to get WORSE economically.
I detest the sort of elitism that guys like Newt are perpetuating right now, because I think it’s elitism in both parties which have lead us to the point we’re at today, but the elites aren’t wrong ALL of the time. On rare occasions, one of their “you CANNOT win with this candidate” predictions is dead-on, and that’s here.
Also, really? Comparing Sarah to MacArthur? She’s no American Caesar.
Vyce on November 16, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Think how different this country would be right now if Gov. Palin was merely our VP.
*sigh*
Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Ahhh… AP.
The Poll Master at work. ‘Tis a thing of beauty.
You are definitely in your element, good sir!
munchnstuf on November 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I never mentioned MacArthur. Didn’t allude to him. I quoted General McAuliffe. Same war. Different theatre. But since you used the term American Caeser. I presume you read the book and know MacArthur was in the Pacific and McAuliffe was fighting the Germans half-way around the world.
If you don’t understand why Palin left the job in Alaska, then you were not really paying attention to the Democrats strategy in Alaska. Not going into the details. Regardless, I just don’t understand why anyone would write a candidate off this far from the elections. Intellectual lightweight? Compared to who? Pawlenty? Huckabee? Romney? You must be joking. What? She didn’t graduate from the right Eastern elite schools? What? She doesn’t talk like an Easterner? Spent 30 years in Washington watching and reporting on all the know-it-alls. They’re not so smart after all. It’s easy to sit back and say the conventional wisdom is that she won’t make it. The odds are she won’t. Doesn’t take much thinking to stick to the CW. Of course that’s the same CW that everyone had (including me) about Obama two years ago. The one thing about CW is that it’s an easy position to take but it is quite often wrong.
My biggest concern, however, is not getting Palin in, it’s getting Obama out. If Palin does nothing more than relentlessly hammer Obama for the next three years making it possible for a fiscally conservative, patriotic American to win, I’ll not only be happy but be able to sleep much better. Everyone has a role to play. Let Palin play hers and let the best man or woman win!
SleeplessinChicago on November 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Not me.
RD on November 17, 2009 at 4:23 AM
Exit question three: Is the premise of exit questions one and two sound? Is it necessarily true that, as a Democrat opponent becomes more formidable, it actually *is* better to run a more centrist candidate on the grounds of “electability”? How does the experience of the 2008 race tend to strengthen or weaken that calculus, which is central to accepting the premise behind exit questions one and two?
Exit question four: Is the next election soon enough to rate Palin an almost certain loser in 2012 based on a poll, or a set of polls, taken in 2009? A lot of commenters say otherwise, and provide examples from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to try & prove it. But are those examples relevant? If so/not, why [not]?
Note that, unlike Romney or Huck, Palin has never stood at a debate lectern and argued why she would be a better president than her primary challengers, while both of them have (in 2008). It would seem that matchup polls would have more validity to them after this has occurred than beforehand. But maybe all this is irrelevant and unnecessary. Which is closer to being accurate?
Note that exit question four is intended to apply no matter whether the economy is still in the toilet or has started to improve by 2012.
RD on November 17, 2009 at 4:58 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »