Rasmussen: “Tea party candidate” would beat Democrat in Texas governor’s race
posted at 8:09 pm on February 5, 2010 by Allahpundit
Not just any generic Democrat either. Debra Medina, businesswoman and “tea party acitivist,” 41; Bill White, mayor of Houston, 38.
She’s not an “official” tea-party candidate, of course, since there’s no such thing — for the moment.
A previous Rasmussen survey of likely Republican voters found Perry leading Hutchison 44-29 with Medina trailing at 16.
Now comes word, via a new Rasmussen Reports Poll, that Medina is gaining some traction and today all three of the Republicans lead the likely Democratic challenger, Houston Mayor Bill White.
Hutchison still performs the best, beating White by 13 points, 49-36. Perry is second-best in that hypothetical matchup, defeating White by nine, 48-39.
But now, Rasmussen’s telephone poll finds, Medina would defeat White 41-38. That’s a reversal from last month when White’s totals put him ahead of her, 44-38. Medina has gone from 4% in November to 12% in January and now 16%, apparently by cutting into Hutchison’s support.
I think her numbers against Perry and Hutchison are a bigger testament to the tea party brand than her numbers against White. It’s no big shock that a libertarian candidate would beat a Democrat in Texas in this political climate, but to pull 16 percent from two nationally famous Republicans? One of whom himself identifies with tea partiers? No mean feat. One note of warning, though:
All three possible Republican candidates post broadly similar results among both Democrats and unaffiliated voters. However, Medina currently attracts only 62% of the GOP vote, well below the totals for Perry and Hutchison. With Medina as the nominee, 23% of GOP voters say they would either prefer a third-option or are undecided.
That’s probably due to lack of name recognition, but remember that Sarahcuda’s polls show Republican support well into the teens shifting to Obama if she’s the nominee. It may be that a certain critical mass of centrist Republicans are uncomfortable with libertarian types or the “tea party label” itself. Or maybe not: A CNN poll out today shows the tea-party movement’s favorable rating split 33/26, with 24 percent claiming they’ve never heard of it and another 16 percent claiming they have no opinion.
The same poll shows Palin’s favorables at 43/46 (among indies it’s 42/47), down three points from the 46/46 split she had in early December. Exit question via Politico: Is Sarahcuda a net asset or net liability for the tea-party movement? The partiers themselves love her, of course, but having spent 18 months in the national spotlight, with all the hype from the book tour now done, and with no elected office available to help pad her resume, it seems like her favorables are probably destined to hover around the net-zero mark for the foreseeable future. Good enough? Or will she be a drag on tea-party candidates among indies and centrist Republicans?
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 4 Next »
I think Terryann can probably best identify with Kathleen Parker…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:41 PM
It’s almost like you want me to denounce being a Republican.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Something I wish McCain had done.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Kathleen Parker writes angry columns.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM
I agree!
It’s really important, in my humble opinion, to understand the origins of the modern left. Taken in that light, it is easy to understand the reactionary movements of Paul and Beck. I don’t like Paul, and I don’t care for Beck (style mostly) but it certainly illustrates the need for a principled opposition to statism because progressivism is never satisfied until it has consumed freedom.
The worst of that, of course, is the banality of evil aspect of liberalism.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 9:43 PM
No, your posts do that for the most part….
You talk a good game about being a social and fiscal con, but your posts give you away.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Especially Wilson. {shutter}
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 9:44 PM
The list is so long……
Again, non-responsive…
Like lovemaking, this will be more fun when you’re fully engaged in it.
massrighty on February 5, 2010 at 9:45 PM
I like it when things make sense… I see no reason for you to be a Republican and more importantly a conservative. If you want to be a Republican, well, fine, what ever. How you can justify being a conservative is beyond me… You are a fiscal conservative: check. Social conservative: check, but you have yet to define your version of conservatism other than saying that you don’t like this or that. I’m a conservative because I embrace conservative principles that trump key words like “war,” “army,” or “taxes.”
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:45 PM
And that’s not why I disagree with her…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Yeah, I’d always had a weird impression of Wilson, but I didn’t know how horrible he was…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM
You want a list, I’ll give you one.
Glenn Beck.
Bill O’Reilly.
Most libertarians.
Tucker Carlson.
Peggy Noonan.
Joe Scarborough……
Shall I go on?
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Ding ding ding… Now, where is Princess Ann when you need her to claim to be a moderate?
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:48 PM
What the hell is a ‘war Republican’? Are you saying that because you are some kind of anti-war person? Nobody likes war but sometimes you need to fight. Conservatives recognize that, liberals typically don’t.
docdave on February 5, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Yeah I’m sure the Democrats will accept me with open arms since I am for low taxes, anti-abortion, and strong military.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 9:51 PM
It’s war-”Republican,” and my point was that I’m sick of “Republicans,” claiming that the only way to have a strong defense is to invade countries… and then… here’s the catcher… spend mega$$$ to prop up Islamic Regimes… with the money that we’ll be paying China back for decades…
If we’re really fighting our enemy, then, please, let’s annihilate them.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Take a pill, doc. We’re establishing OlympiaAnn’s, uh, stance on all things republican.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Sure they will… I know Registered D’s that are more conservative than you…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Dude, Tucker Carlson is awesome.
Here’s an example of why, regarding the Iraq War: He used to ask why we were in Iraq – a good question which, imo, the W WH left to righty pundits to answer, so you would get a bunch of answers. The real answer, it appears to me, is that W thought if we could establish a democracy in the center of the Middle East we could change the recurring problems there, but that’s just my opinion on what W thought, so that’s neither here nor there. But TC would ask that question repeatedly.
Fastforward to surge, we start surge and he has Dems on his show saying – the surge will fail, etc, and he would completely disintegrate their argument. He would say things like – I don’t know why we are in Iraq exactly, but now that we are there, shouldn’t we do everything to win? And since the opposition to the surge was always, ‘we shouldn’t even be in Iraq’ he made the opposition to the surge look childish.
I loved him for that. You can ask hard question and support success at the same time. He has a lot of cred with me for that. He also called out RPaul on his show over the racist newsletters, when he had a vested interest in the success of that campaign. That guy is a champ.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 9:54 PM
OMG~Crowder on
Hannitythe Tucker show!HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 9:56 PM
I should add also, he’s one of the best inside baseball guys. Not that he will go on about what he wants to happen, but what he expects to happen, why and how. Which is great to get that kind of straight dope when you have Reid and Pelosi on/off ‘we have the votes/we don’t have the votes’.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Your list includes at least two who are arguably neither conservative nor libertarian.
But it is a response, and I am gratified.
Isn’t this better (being fully engaged) than simply checking the ceiling for cracks?
massrighty on February 5, 2010 at 9:57 PM
We’ve got some Tuckerulians here ;-)
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 9:57 PM
He would go on Crossfire everyday defending the Iraq War than when things got tough he said he didn’t support it anymore. I don’t remember him asking tough questions. He went from a full blown supporter to the opposition.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Commentin’ on Texas politics since I live here and we gotta do this; Debra Medina is a real up-and-comer…not this race but she’s got a great future. KBH might as well be a windmill, whatever the “press” wants her to do, she does, and oh dang, she can be green. And those that live here know that. Perry has his warts but we know what they are. In a nutshell. Any questions?
thebookkeeper on February 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Sorry, but you’re the one that thought Medina fell flat. You’re the one that can’t define Conservatism and vehemently opposes Libertarianism (why?). Then you identified yourself as a classical liberal (aka libertarian conservative). You’re loosing credibility more and more…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM
I wish I could address this, but I never saw him until he was on MSNBC. I watched almost every episode of his show though, and he’s like Rush to me in that respect – he’s so internally consistent that I’m forced to give him the benefit of the doubt if it’s over a matter I have not heard. Which is to say, I don’t disbelieve you, but he has always been (on TV) a devil’s advocate guy – he’ll argue from points of view that he doesn’t hold to flush out his opponents’ fallacies.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM
See~you are SO like John McCain~you defended Al Gore, saying he wasn’t always the flaming liberal that he is now……but, if we are talking about a conservative/libetarian, you are all about throwing him or her under the bus.
Do you have the keys to the obama bus, btw? They are about to throw Rahm or Holder under, I predict.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM
I was a big fan of Tucker in his Crossfire days. Trust me….he would defend the Iraq War before he left CNN for MSNBC.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM
I didn’t defend Al Gore. I don’t like Al Gore. I do like Tucker Carlson. I’m just saying he flipped flopped on the war…..and HE did.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:07 PM
When we finally went to war against Hitler we stopped him at about eight million dead. We did not go to war against Stalin or Mao and they killed about fifteen million each.
Johan Klaus on February 5, 2010 at 10:07 PM
I have difficulty believing that he would argue that we should leave if he believed in the mission, and I have difficulty believing that he would argue for the war if he didn’t believe in the mission.
All I can say is everything I’ve heard him say on the war has been smart and thoughtful. Maybe he did say something unsmart and unthoughtful. I’ve not ever heard such.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:09 PM
What you knew then and what you know now…..and, you did defend Al Gore by your statement.
I remember Al Gore’s wife not wanting me to listen to Twisted Sister~I never forgot that name and I knew scum when I saw it. The Gores are scum.
I think what you are trying to get at, as all democrats and dem lites try to manufacture is outrage at conservative/libetarians when they ‘do wrong’, while forgiving liberals/dem/dem lites because it is par for the course.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Say it ain’t so…
I’m still not buying what OlympiaAnn claims, though.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Look at his wiki entry. It’s there under “Supporting, then opposing, the U.S. war in Iraq”
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Yeah. Where’s Tipper when it comes to the Sh!t they call ‘music’ today?
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:13 PM
The damning words…
Uh… sounds like he might have been on the money… or at least partially.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Ah… yes… that was her name. Why does she remind me of Elizabeth Edwards?
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:16 PM
No doubt~saving ‘drowning’ polar bears that can swim up to sixty miles.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Oh good, thanks. Well that is exactly what I would expect. It’s intellectually honest, I appreciate that. A man can change his mind, I was getting the impression from your comments that he wanted out when the going go tough, which I could not believe.
Sadly, it was a mess, Cheney has said that. And I think the WH failed the populace on the argument for war. That doesn’t mean I disagree with the war, I just think the message wasn’t well done.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Like it or not fellow HA Texans, Perry will win. All things considered, Texas is a relatively successful state when compared to any other. One would be hard pressed to find an example of changing horses mid stream in that set of circumstances.
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:18 PM
I’m starting to believe that OlympiaAnn is maverick’s house trained lap dog.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:18 PM
You just had to bring up Barney Frank.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Perry has been a good governor for Texas and he deserves to keep his job. Between Kay and Rick, Perry’s the more fiscal conservative and as far as Mark White goes he would turn my state blue in a heartbeat with the illegals.
redridinghood on February 5, 2010 at 10:18 PM
All bark no bite?
No, I don’t think LindseyGrahamonline comes to HA…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM
I believe she singled out ‘Sister’ because Dee Snider was a Libertarian/conservative.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:20 PM
He basically said he was ashamed he supported the war which completely different then saying things got more messy than one would like. I think you are watering down his comments.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Maybe she’s Meghan. Did you see any twinkie trucks around here?
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Peas in a pod.
Or pigs in a poke, if you will.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM
…..I wanna rock!
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Dr Evil on February 5, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Thanks for that background info on Perry. I had not read that before.
Firefly_76 on February 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM
I’m channeling that he was sold argument A for going to war, when in reality we went to war because of B. WoMD anyone?
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM
The blond can’t bark because her mouth is taped shut… no joke.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Those ‘Neidermeyer’ videos were classic.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Arugula in a pod?
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:23 PM
I’m not trying to water down his comments. This is what it seems to me, tell me if you disagree.
He is saying that his instinct was not in favor of the Iraq War. He is also saying he was convinced, via argument or presentation, that his instinct should be ignored in this case. Then the argument lost out over time to his instincts, and he regrets having doubted himself in the first place. Despite all that, considering the position (like a patriot does) he wants the best for the US going forward in Iraq.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM
That was true, but what does it matter? I knew there were valid reasons and whatever the WH said or didn’t say had no bearing on those valid reasons.
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM
You need to be clear, as I’ve always said…
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM
They need a piece for the nose too, Meat.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Uhhh… remember those things you sent to the POTUS? Yeah…
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Hey, I’m sticking with us inheriting global warming from the Martians.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:26 PM
I was sending things with strings BEFORE there was even a movement!
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 10:26 PM
*snort*
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Thanks, anuts and redridinghood, I’ve been tryin’ to save them some time and energy arguing. But, oh well. But, how ’bout them Saints?? Let’s do some who dat!
thebookkeeper on February 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Who was it, Burke? that said he was convinced that no country could sustain an effort for long if it’s populace was not behind it.
Did it matter to you? No, because “you knew”. That’s terrific for everyone in your position. It’s the people that didn’t know/don’t know that need the information, and the WH is responsible for getting their message out.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM
I get your point. Like I said I don’t dislike Tucker. I’m sure he wants the U.S. to succeed. I’m not questioning that.
All I’m saying is that he changed his position on the Iraq War….. and he did. I think even he would admit that.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM
I Don’t think I wanna know what ‘things with strings’ might be.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM
I’m with you. I’d rather the Ain’ts than the Dolts. I was sick of Peyton before I was tired of Ryan Leaf’s antics.
Lanceman on February 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
QOTD… that’s where I’m going to find some trolls :)
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Right, but I don’t see why that should make me not like him in any way. Emerson once said that a man should argue today for what he believes today, and if he believes differently tomorrow he should argue differently tomorrow.
What I care about is the intellectually honesty. I don’t need to agree with someone, I like Rush, but I don’t always agree with his opinion. I like Tucker, but I don’t always agree with him. I don’t really care for echo chambers, and what I like is that both of those guys (just for example) are free thinkers and even if we are in agreement, the method of arriving at that point is usually different. They will articulate their own path, and that is why I like ‘em.
Tucker is the bomb in my book.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM
I don’t dislike Tucker for changing positions either. I was just giving a little props for Brooks (who we like to bash here) for being consistent on his position on Iraq.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:35 PM
I think the ignorance of some (many?) on the Iraq problem after 1991, all during the 90′s, and then especially after 9-11 happened could almost be categorized as willful. Even if not, said ignorance does not invalidate those reasons.
The WH could have said we are going to act on the regime change policy set in the late 90′s because Saddam’s favorite color is green. Doesn’t change a thing.
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Well you did imply he took it back because of political outcomes: He has never taken back his support for the Iraq War because it became politically unpopular. That is more than I can say for others in the conservative/libertarian movement. After which you listed TC.
But if that’s not what you meant with those words, I won’t put that on you.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:39 PM
With all due respect Ms HS, if being part of the teaparty movement means one must pass some sort of “litmus” test, and that one is irrelevant in the movement because they support Rick Perry, then the tea party is not what I thought it was. I did a lot of research on Debra Medina and frankly I don’t believe she’s what’s best for Texas at this time. If one is irrelevant because one does not support Debra Medina, then so be it. Y’all can take your tea party movement (or at least what you’ve all deemed it to be) and go along your merry way. Those of us in the real world have to consider all options. (Definitely not Democrat, look where the dem run states are at to answer THAT why not question).
Annietxgrl on February 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Well Tucker did renounce his support about the time when the Iraq War starting becoming really unpopular. Do with that what you will.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Allah..you are a real tool.
Only a clown like you could take something that had NOTHING to do with Sarah Palin and figure out a way to bash her.
Someone need to hit you in the nuts with a pall peen hammer!
Now, with that said, electing Median would be like electing Obama..or sending Harriet Meyers to SCOTUS! The woman has ZERO experience. ZERO.
We all know what KBH is, so screw that, and Allahpundit, a NY beta male, or one of his cats, has a better chance of getting elected to state wide office than a democrat!
Rick Perry isn’t perfect, but he is so far ahead of the rest it ain’t funny.
I hope Kinky Friedman runs again. Just for comic relief!
gary4205 on February 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM
I am not getting your meaning. To remain viable as a matter of policy, support from the populace is necessary. Yes, the WH could have gone in b/c Saddam’s color is green and if the people cared about that the war would have been rounded supported.
But the dems were able to run against Bush and the War. I think fighting in Iraq turned out to be a much better proposition then fighting in Afganistan, but the WH didn’t make the argument other then to say it was the central front in the war on terror. The WH didn’t make a connection from 9/11 to Iraq, directly, as the cause for war. And if the 90s and all the violations were cause for war, to the average mind why didn’t we go then? Why now? It left a vacuum which the left filled with warmonger and war for oil, etc.
It’s hard to condemn willful ignorance, in our society we elect people to do day to day governing for us; we are after all a republic and not a democracy. So in our society we tend to get educated as needed – a time of “as needed” is usually the build up to a war.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Let me put in a challenge this way: Given what we Texans know about the power (or lack thereof) the Governor wields and our budget and fiscal status, what is the best argument for ‘firing’ Perry at this point?
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM
I’ll take him at his word :)
His entire personal political platform is not geared around popularity. It would be inconsistent for him on this point to be swayed in that manner.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:47 PM
He’s a television pundit. They all want to be popular and more camera time.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:50 PM
At first Medina was just a pipe dream. But almost over night she is becoming the popular choice. I originally supported Perry because he was better than Hutchinson and I didn’t think Medina had a prayer. But Medina will be great!
The beautiful part is that Bush and Cheney support Hutchinson, Palin supports Perry, no one supports Medina, but she keeps gaining support! Take that! We don’t care who the Reps like, we like who we like!
jeffn21 on February 5, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Dude. First that’s a generalization that serves nothing. All men cheat, never marry. You’re welcome. And Two, he got FIRED from his job because he didn’t change his ideological bent.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I understand about the direct 9-11 connection and I was not trying to imply as much. But the bold question above is why 9-11 was related. It also was (should have been anyway) eye opening to the real threat and problems that region was festering into. Saddam being the centerpiece of that potential.
No reason to condemn them (the willful ignorant), but certainly reason to dismiss their protestations when they lack the understanding of the issue.
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I didn’t know he was fired. I know that he had his show on MSNBC canceled because he didn’t get ratings.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Umm…I’m not quite understanding the difference.
anuts on February 5, 2010 at 10:59 PM
After they canceled his own show he would still appear on Morning Joe and other MSNBC programs. So he was still on MSNBC’s payroll.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Yeah, that’s why I said I don’t understand where you are trying to lead me.
I’m not talking about protestations of people. Unless you think I’m saying Tucker protested the war? (I’m not) and Protesters weren’t uninformed, per see, they thought they knew something, i.e. they thought they were informed, so they really aren’t the people the WH needed to reach anyway.
Tucker wasn’t saying he didn’t understand reasons to go to war in Iraq; I’m not saying I don’t, and clearly you aren’t saying that about your self. What I am saying is he asked questions about the reasons the White House had – and it’s those reasons that are the reasons that should drive public opinion on what the White House is trying to do. In other words, it is better to be judged on your mission then hope people support you for what they might guess the mission to be.
Did we win the war on terror? Is it over? If it’s not, why wasn’t it a bigger issue in the last campaign, and if was given too small of an airing during the election, would McCain have won had it been different? If we didn’t win the war (already) the message has made a big difference going forward. Public opinion, voiced in the election, now has lead to terrorists getting rights of the citizenry. Hence I think the marketing matters a lot.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 11:03 PM
IIRC his ratings were higher then some of the other shows. He got fired because of ideology (there was a story re: KO in the NYT? during the time about his influence reshaping the opinion shows). He was retained as a commentator for other shows because of his contract.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM
Yikes, I’m surprised you were not flayed alive for that one. Them’s fightin’ words here.
Firefly_76 on February 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM
That’s Mr. Teabagger to you.
RobCon on February 5, 2010 at 11:09 PM
jeffn21 on February 5, 2010 at 10:52 PM
I’m curious. The primary is next month, right? Is it right that if no one gets over 50% there is a run-off b/w the two top candidates? Would be great if Medina could ahead of Hutchinson it out to go in a run-off with Perry.
Firefly_76 on February 5, 2010 at 11:09 PM
From the New York Times
MSNBC said this afternoon that it was canceling “Tucker,” the low-rated, early evening program led by Tucker Carlson, and replacing it with a new, politically oriented program featuring David Gregory, chief White House correspondent of NBC News.
Why would MSNBC cancel a show that was doing good in the ratings?
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Everything on MSNBC is low rated. The show that replaced his gets lower ratings then his did.
Why? Because they decided it would be a good idea to corner the market on the left. It was about countering Fox. Unfortunately for their pocketbook, people are more center-right then far-left. If MSNBC just wanted ratings they would produce a more balanced, FOX like product.
Spirit of 1776 on February 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM
If my choice were between White and Medina, I’d go with White. We’ve seen what inexperience can do. Plenty of others here in Texas would do the same. Generic libertarian may beat generic democrat in a poll, but when push comes to ballot, people put a bit more thought into it.
Fortunately, Perry is in like Flint.
Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM
HornetSting does live in the real world and she realizes that Perry isn’t the best leader for TX.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I’m going with Perry. The Ron Paul groupies like Medina too much, and I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them.
Sekhmet on February 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Frankly, I just don’t think Tucker fits in cable news. I can imagine him more as a panelist on a Sunday political program or something. To be popular on cable news you have to be bombastic. He’s not.
terryannonline on February 5, 2010 at 11:32 PM
That’s irrational. If the Chicoms liked Bush more than Obama (btw Paul fans, nuts, and Ronulans are not commies), does that mean we should scratch Bush from the list. Judge Medina based on her ideals/principles and not on whether or not a given group approves.
MeatHeadinCA on February 5, 2010 at 11:33 PM
With some of the skewed results I see in polls
conducted by CNN, NBC, ABC, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.,
I’ve long suspected the MSM polls consist of them walking from floor to floor, office to office, cubicle to cubicle in their own buildings. This sort of confirms my suspicions.
24% have never heard of the Tea Parties?
This 24% either live in a third world country,
or they all work for the MSM, which would totally
explain why they never hear anything about Tea Parties.
mrt721 on February 5, 2010 at 11:37 PM
I like Ms. Medina. Just not this race. And Mme. KBH has screwed the pooch, so to speak.
thebookkeeper on February 5, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »