Gallup: Palin’s unfavorable rating hits new high of 52%

posted at 4:58 pm on November 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

To recycle an old joke much beloved by longtime HA readers: You know who this poll benefits? Mitt Romney.

More than half of Americans, 52%, now view Sarah Palin unfavorably, the highest percentage holding a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor in Gallup polling since Sen. John McCain tapped her as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. Her 40% favorable rating ties her lowest favorable score, recorded just over a year ago…

Palin’s image has consistently tilted negative since July 2009, and was nearly as negative in October 2009 as it is today. Public views on her were also more negative than positive just before the 2008 election, in which President Obama handily defeated the Republican ticket. By contrast, Americans’ initial reactions to Palin after her debut at the Republican National Convention that year were mostly favorable.

Follow the link above and you’ll see that the last time her favorables were net positive was January 2009. But wait, you say, didn’t we see an AP poll just days ago showing her favorable numbers the highest they’ve been in almost a year (not to mention yesterday’s PPP poll showing her leading the GOP field in several states)? Indeed we did, and I’m at a loss to explain the discrepancy. The AP polled 1,000 adults nationwide from Nov. 3 to Nov. 8 and got a 46/49 split; Gallup polled 1,021 adults nationwide from Nov. 4 to Nov. 7 and came up with 40/52. Your guess for what accounts for the difference is as good as mine. In fact, I can give you an argument for why each poll might be an outlier. If you look at HuffPo’s table of recent polling on her, the 40/52 number is more in line with polls taken last month (including one by Fox) than the AP’s rosier 46/49 split. On the other hand, I find this graph from Gallup exceedingly hard to believe:

So somehow, just three months before an election in which the GOP would end up utterly destroying Democrats among independents, the favorable rating of one of its most prominent figures just drops off a cliff among those same indies? Does that make any sense at all? It’s especially odd if you read the full Gallup article and see that the tea party’s numbers are steady over time. If Palin’s downturn was the byproduct of independents souring on fringier candidates like Angle and O’Donnell, that downturn should theoretically also appear in the ratings for the movement overall. It doesn’t. So what gives?

The good news is that her new TLC show produce some sort of bounce in the next poll. The bad news is that it’s now been almost two full years since her favorables were above the water line. Not the banner you want to carry into primary season when lots of GOP voters will be thinking of electability. Exit quotation from a certain senatorial princess who shall remain nameless: “I know what my Alaska looks like.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

So … 20+ years of Reagan (pre-presidency) = 18 months of Sarah Palin.

Things are fast in politics in 2010, true. But not that fast, buddy.

Ian on November 12, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Sarah’s been in public life for 20 years also, so your argument, such as it is, fails.

Jenfidel on November 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM

We all know (even you Sarah!!!!! people) deep down inside she rather have a reality show and sell books and make millions of $$$$ than just be President.

The country is waking up to who this woman really is.

Ian on November 12, 2010 at 9:52 PM

You need to keep up…today’s meme is Sarah has a Soros employee working for her….

CCRWM on November 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM

This is getting hilarious. Do I have to add Carter too?

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:05 PM

What’s the problem? You wanted a different comparison, I gave you one. Carter was far better “qualified” for the Presidency than Obama, yet he turned out to be a damn disaster.

Conversely, what some interpret as a light resume isn’t necessarily going to indicate a bad President.

It is mainly a matter of vision for the nation, the right policy approach to our problems, the right kind of character, courage and honesty.

I happen to think Sarah Palin demonstrates those things rather strongly, even more visibly after having left office. I like what I have seen. I would trust her to not screw up everything with too many crazy experiments, but to let the American people make the country work, like Reagan did.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Word to the unwise: “obtuse” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Jenfidel on November 12, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I know exactly what it means, and used it in an accurate context, whether you can appreciate that or not. Your posting this underscores the point.

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Palins record of getting promoted to each new level by RINOs does not make a presidential run. The independent voters need something they can respect the person for. They only vote for a Republican if he has had a normal life. In Nevada the doctor won a seat while Angle did not.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

What’s the problem? You wanted a different comparison, I gave you one. Carter was far better “qualified” for the Presidency than Obama, yet he turned out to be a damn disaster.

I neither wanted nor asked for any such comparison. Comparing any politician to to Obama, Biden or Carter is like me comparing my basketball skills to my three-year old nephew’s. Can i outscore him? Of course. Does it support an assertion that I can start for an NBA team and lead the league in scoring? No.

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Palins record of getting promoted to each new level by RINOs does not make a presidential run. The independent voters need something they can respect the person for. They only vote for a Republican if he has had a normal life. In Nevada the doctor won a seat while Angle did not.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Haha, so says Mr. RomneyLove. Too funny.

I guess Romney can be respected for blowing $150million and not winning one single state in 2008? Good one.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Then what comparison are you insisting on?

They are all in the Big League, just on the other team.

I like what I have seen from Sarah Palin more than I like what I have seen from any of the other prospects.

She has more guts than them all combined.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:26 PM

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM

So, what was your point?
Or could it possibly be that you don’t have a valid point?
It’s either that, or we’re all being “obtuse.”

Jenfidel on November 12, 2010 at 10:26 PM

I am done wasting my time on two streams here.

churchill995 on November 12, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Romney can be respected for blowing $150million and not winning one single state in 2008? Good one.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Lying like always I see. Romney won a few states, but he had a little bigotbee Huckabee kneecap him for being Mormon.

Huckabee will want to do the same thing no doubt.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:29 PM

For those of you who weren’t paying attention on Nov. 2nd, am Elitist like Tromney won’t carry the Northeast, much less Dixie.

kingsjester on November 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

For those of you who weren’t paying attention on Nov. 2nd, am Elitist like Tromney won’t carry the Northeast, much less Dixie.

kingsjester on November 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

It seems Palin won’t carry Alaska or Nevada from Nov 2 results.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM

seriously… it’s all about Dancing With The Stars. Palin over-exposure is reminding the clueless left of how much they hate her. Once Bristol gets voted off things will look better. It’s the Sanjaya Effect.

cannonball on November 12, 2010 at 10:35 PM

It seems Palin won’t carry Alaska or Nevada from Nov 2 results.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM

It seems the Mass GOP got wiped out on Nov 2nd.

Not. One. Win. Where was Mitt? Couldn’t he get equal blame for any of this?

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

OK, I am going to say it here. I can’t WAIT to see the TLC series on Sarah Palin’s Alaska. They start this weekend.

karenhasfreedom on November 12, 2010 at 10:39 PM

One of these days, Allah is going to put up a picture of Palin next to hunk of red meat, and be done with it.

flackcatcher on November 12, 2010 at 10:42 PM

It seems Palin won’t carry Alaska or Nevada from Nov 2 results.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Not mention that right after Mitt personally heartily endorsed Senator Bennett (R-UT), the State GOP convention threw him out before the primary even began. In “the Mormon State”. Hmmmm, how is this not going to be Mitt’s fault, like everything is Sarah’s fault?

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:42 PM

What was Reagan’s “favorable/unfavorable” before he announced after years of being vilified as a chimpanzee’s movie co-star and not much more?

Marcus on November 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Marcus on November 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

After all he managed to accomplish for our country, nobody remembers anymore. Isn’t that the point?

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM

What was Reagan’s “favorable/unfavorable” before he announced after years of being vilified as a chimpanzee’s movie co-star and not much more?

Marcus on November 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Obviously Christine O’Donnell is more Reagan like cause she appeared on TV. Reagan = anyone who has been made fun of.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Let me see if I have this right. We’re supposed to believe that Palin is so wildly unpopular that she would absolutely guarantee that Obama would coast to re-election if she should run against him in 2012. We’re supposed to believe that Palin is so widely hated that what Obama does in the next two years is simply irrelevant — Obama could personally see to it that we suffer through hyperinflation, that the dollar is rendered unusable before 2012, and that all our bank accounts are simply erased — and he’d STILL win re-election if Palin is the opponent. This is what we’re supposed to believe at this point.

Have I got that about right?

Aitch748 on November 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Has anyone seen this, from the WSJ?

WSJ Editor Paul Gigot: Governor Palin “Leading the Pack” on Monetary Policy

I also heard Newt yesterday, and Karl Rove tonight on FOX saying the point was an important one, and made well by Gov Palin in that speech in Phoenix the other day.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Obviously Christine O’Donnell is more Reagan like cause she appeared on TV. Reagan = anyone who has been made fun of.

PrezHussein on November 12, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Uh, not exactly.
Reagan was made fun of during his presidency, also, by the Left–this I remember personally.
His poll numbers weren’t too great either, even in the weeks and months leading up to his huge election victory in 1980.

Jenfidel on November 12, 2010 at 11:23 PM

OT: Just checked InTrade, and Romney has plummeted over the past 3 days, now at his lowest in nearly a year.

Interesting…

Norwegian on November 12, 2010 at 11:29 PM

As always the MSM wants to frame Obama’s re-election in terms of the challenger but history tells us it is the incumbent and his job performance over his first term which is most scrutinized in any re-election campaign.

If he has done a good job, the voters will vote to give him another chance and a second term but if he hasn’t then they will decide to fire him and replace him with the challenger.

This is exactly what happened in 1980. The voters had enough of Carter and voted to replace him with Reagan despite some folks having misgivings about the Gipper.

And if the voters in 2012 decide they have had enough of Obama they will replace him with the GOP nominee whoever that is.

technopeasant on November 12, 2010 at 11:48 PM

This is total bulls**t. Polls fail, especially when it comes to conservatives victimized by this particular extension of the media. Nobody with any sense listens to polls anymore. (oops, guess that includes AP…)

fabrexe on November 13, 2010 at 1:21 AM

…the right kind of character, courage and honesty.

I think you called it right here. remember our first “sixties” president’s media motto was “Character doesn’t matter”

From the bilge thinking inheirited from the sixties’ revolution against all moral authority -we have evolved into a nation unable to govern ourselves. How else do you explain an anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-life, Obama still nearing 50% likeability?
We have lost our moral compass, our sense of our humanity being a gift from no less than “nature’s God” and the responsibility that goes with that. We have swapped the state for the family as the core building block of a society, following the goals of the American Communist Party, we’ve thrown God out of the public square, we’ve indulge ourselves into letting our children be contaminated by bilge in our schools and in our homes(TV,internet)We tolerate propaganda for new, We seek not, a better nation for all, but what’s in it for me. And we run around like the proverbial headless chicken seeking to put the inevitable scraps back together by the politics of greedy or envious men. Pogo was more than right – the enemy is US!

Don L on November 13, 2010 at 6:52 AM

That’s why she outdraws Everyone including Obama.

lilium on November 13, 2010 at 7:34 AM

I also heard Newt yesterday, and Karl Rove tonight on FOX saying the point was an important one, and made well by Gov Palin in that speech in Phoenix the other day.

Brian1972 on November 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Rove is a funny guy. I watched that on Greta. He’s careful now, at least for the time being not to say anything that may be perceived as being anti-any candidate, especially anti-Palin.

He still provides some good analysis … but for a while there it did seem it was getting a little personal.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 8:37 AM

As an independent and an atheist (which I realize makes me unwelcome here), I am not a big fan of Sarah Palin. I think her ability to govern would probably be pretty good and better than most of the other choices on the right or left, but her instance on social issues that I fundamentally oppose prohibits me from supporting her in any real sense.

My perception of her focus on social issues was only reinforced by the creationist anti science candidates she supported in the mid terms. I will never be interested in the Government having any say in social issues, promoting bronze age thinking, or giving a voice to anti science propaganda. I am interested in lean fiscal policy, strong military, and reducing the tax burden on the population.

chupa on November 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM

No surprise really, she is over-exposed.

jbh45 on November 13, 2010 at 9:10 AM

As an independent and an atheist (which I realize makes me unwelcome here), I am not a big fan of Sarah Palin. I think her ability to govern would probably be pretty good and better than most of the other choices on the right or left, but her instance on social issues that I fundamentally oppose prohibits me from supporting her in any real sense.

You’re not welcome here? This is not a religious blog.
Most people in the US believe in God so it would figure that most here do too. That does not mean you’re not welcome. You may get into some heated arguments … but you’re always welcome.

My perception of her focus on social issues was only reinforced by the creationist anti science candidates she supported in the mid terms. I will never be interested in the Government having any say in social issues, promoting bronze age thinking, or giving a voice to anti science propaganda. I am interested in lean fiscal policy, strong military, and reducing the tax burden on the population.

chupa on November 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Her stance on “social issues” is promoting personal responsibility. Look at her governing record in Alaska. She’s not one to push social issues. In fact, the more we get government out of our lives the fewer social issues there will be. It’s societies job to deal with “social” issues … not the governments.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 9:19 AM

My perception of her focus on social issues was only reinforced by the creationist anti science candidates she supported in the mid terms.
chupa on November 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM

There are easier ways to admit to being a clown.

Inanemergencydial on November 13, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Sarah seems pretty much at ease with this reality. As she says, even her endorsement cuts both ways.

She is truly a leader, and that means, a lightening rod for all the changes that are happening. A country doesn’t swing from voting in Obama to voting out Dems across the country without there being some strong fall-out.

I personally like her a lot. And I think she’s an exciting addition to American politics. I love the change, personally, because I’m one that can’t see that I’d even vote Republican if it’s Romney Inc. I never have supported the same old GOP approach to government.

So, we’ll just have to wait and see. I personally will hope that the country tilts more toward someone like Palin, if not her specifically. But, that may not be where the swing voters really are. I suspect a lot of them are hoping that just nipping the Dems in the total power structure will be enough.

I also think they are probably wrong on that one.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM

because I’m one that can’t see that I’d even vote Republican if it’s Romney Inc. I never have supported the same old GOP approach to government.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM

You’d vote Marxist over Republican if it’s Romney?

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM

You’d vote Marxist over Republican if it’s Romney?

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Well, I don’t see Obama as remotely Marxist. You’d have to tar and feather every Dem with that label, then. Not to belabor my views, since I’ve repeated them too often, probably; but I see Obama as the East Coast Democratic Insider guy in your pocket, backed by a rabid and angry base.

That’s why the anti-Teaparty wave interests me. I went to one. It was mild-mannered, filled with small business people, etc., and totally different from the media image. I decided that the far left assumed that this movement was uber-angry and like they were over Bush.

But if I’m an example of the 30% who identify with the Teaparty, that’s simply not true.

Obama isn’t a Marxist. He’s just a cookie-cutter Dem whom they picked to thwart the Clintons, who are far more centrist.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Obama isn’t a Marxist. He’s just a cookie-cutter Dem whom they picked to thwart the Clintons, who are far more centrist.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Well, you just keep thinking that. As far as the Clinton’s being centrist … they tried to ram the same health care bill Obama did. They chickened out. They’re not more centrist, they’re just smart. Obama is merely a figurehead. All decisions are being made by others.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Well, you just keep thinking that. As far as the Clinton’s being centrist … they tried to ram the same health care bill Obama did. They chickened out. They’re not more centrist, they’re just smart. Obama is merely a figurehead. All decisions are being made by others.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Well, remember, I wanted a real HCR. I still think had they voted in a public option, pricing it competitively, you’d have seen a different midterm outcome.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM

I know what I’m not expressing.

Romney seems like Crist to me. Same feel.

I just get a real *ick* feeling.

BTW, guys, I voted for McCain. I liked him. Still do.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Well, remember, I wanted a real HCR. I still think had they voted in a public option, pricing it competitively, you’d have seen a different midterm outcome.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Ann, Ann … the answer is not more government, it’s less government. Government is the cause of rising health care cost. Secondly, government pricing “competively” is misleading. Government can always charge less. Their pocket is the American taxpayer. There is a minimum private insurance must charge to stay afloat and that minimum will always be more than the government. A public option will kill off private insurance and open the door to government run health care.

Please use your head. This country has been taken so far left we have to go way right just to reach center.

Less government means prosperity. More spells eventual doom. Every empire and powerful nation of the past has killed itself by growing massive government. giving away freebies and incurring huge debt. It’s what killed Rome, Spain, England and now will kill us if we keep this up.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I campaigned, contributed to and supported Palin in 08. I thought she was the answer to Obama…I don’t believe that is true any longer, unfortunately. I think she is all about the money, nothing more, nothing less.

She doesn’t give a flip about politics and therefore in my opinion will never be able to defeat the present administration no matter how much money or clout anyone throws her way.

SP lost me when she campaigned for McAmnesty and gave her support to another homegrown RINO here in GA (thank God she lost)AKA Karen Handel. And, as bad as I detest Obama, I’m sickened to come to this realization about Ms. Palin. She’s either a Conservative or not, regardless of her loyalty to any particular RINO.

There’s no one that I’m excited about supporting, so far, but as it’s been mentioned many times, it’s still early.

DanaSmiles on November 13, 2010 at 11:03 AM

You need to keep up…today’s meme is Sarah has a Soros employee working for her….

CCRWM on November 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I don’t know why anyone would be surprised. She was hijacked by the neoconservatives (read progressives in conservative clothing) from the beginning. After all, she was chosen by Mr. “National Greatness” to be his running mate.

She can still break free.

They call you “Project Sarah.” We saw that one staffer at AEI—that mystery monogram on all your briefing books—said you’re “a blank slate.” He added, “She’s going places, and it’s worth going there with her.” That’s how they operate. They don’t implement their agenda themselves. Rather, they impose it on rising star. If things don’t work out, it’s because the Project wasn’t sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)

Rae on November 13, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I don’t believe that is true any longer, unfortunately. I think she is all about the money, nothing more, nothing less.

You got to be kidding me. I am amazed. Sarah is so not into money, it’s obvious.

Yes, of course, being able to keep up the lifestyle without struggling is great. But she hit that point way long ago.

Beyond that, it’s gravy.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Ann, Ann …

I’m not as persuaded by that aspect of conservatism. My “evolution” has taken me to a rather new spot.

It’s RIGHT government.

I don’t mind government. I think government is needed, it’s the glue that sticks us together.

But….it needs to be laser-beam.

And I think HCR is a legitimate issue that we need. I stick by my own idea of a sensible solution….which was a public option that was competitively priced. That means, not a political football. If the private industries didn’t want that business, OK.

But someone would. If they were smart, that is.

And it would truly have made a lot of real Americans sleep better. We’re honestly stuck right now. And this Dem bill is horrific.

And going back to nothing is horrific.

Beware. This issue will definitely blow up in your face. No, we don’t all trust private business motives to the extent that some conservatives do, and not all those of us who like the Teaparty are as far-right on this, either.

Beware. We want effective government. We don’t want no government.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I think she is all about the money, nothing more, nothing less.

DanaSmiles on November 13, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Not a very nuanced perception. Palin doesn’t always take a fee. She puts herself front and center and takes slings and arrows that very few would stand up to take. People don’t do that for money.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 11:31 AM

It’s RIGHT government.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Stop it. No one here is advocating no government. We want the government prescribed in the Constitution. We don’t want a government that grows beyond it’s authorized role, and that steals trillions of dollars for social engineering and vote buying.

The “aspect” of conservatism that you’re not persuaded by is the very same aspect that the founders had. If you don’t like what they created then stick with democrats. They’re intention is to rewrite the Constitution to give them unlimited power. We the people don’t fit in that version.

You are not advocating anything but socialism.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Beware. We want effective government. We don’t want no government.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I’m surprised you like Palin then. Palin advocates much smaller government and bringing back personal responsibility.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 11:43 AM

And I think HCR is a legitimate issue that we need. I stick by my own idea of a sensible solution….which was a public option that was competitively priced. That means, not a political football. If the private industries didn’t want that business, OK.

But someone would. If they were smart, that is.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I’m not quite sure why you don’t understand this. There is no such thing as “competitive pricing” with the government. They can always price less than private business. Private business must turn a profit to stay afloat. The government doesn’t. They just run in the red while piling all that debt on that backs of the taxpayers.

In addition, private business must run efficiently. Government doesn’t. Government bureaucrats and endless red tape.

The public option is nothing more than a device to kill off private insurance. It’s not rocket science. Business cannot compete with the bottomless pockets of goverment.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I’m not quite sure why you don’t understand this. There is no such thing as “competitive pricing” with the government. They can always price less than private business. Private business must turn a profit to stay afloat. The government doesn’t. They just run in the red while piling all that debt on that backs of the taxpayers.

I think the news today about the Postal Service proves you wrong.

Just my own take.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The postal service lost big, in spite of deep cuts. To me? This story conflicts with the idea that a government program will always win over a private.

That is your proof that idea isn’t always right. Either the agency is run from bottom up effectively, or it will not survive.

I think that’s why I don’t agree with conservatives about HCR. I don’t think the private industry has been effective in delivering healthcare. I think they are a business. And they have effectively booted out everyone whom doesn’t fit their profit profile to the government.

I think HCR needs reform. What Congress cooked up is awful.

We can do alot better.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM

I think the news today about the Postal Service proves you wrong.

Just my own take.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM

They lost 8.5 billion. How am I wrong? The government will do the same with health care. The Post Office made some cuts. When government run health care becomes a gigantic drain exactly what kind of cuts are they going to make?

The big problem is a “postal service” is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Running our lives isn’t.

I think HCR needs reform. What Congress cooked up is awful.

We can do alot better.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Yeah, we can. I still don’t think you understand the problem. Higher costs are the result of government. Medicare and Medicaid don’t pay the full dollar amount of cost. That cost must be found elsewhere … and it’s found in the people that have insurance and pay for their own medical care. Insurance goes up not because they’re making massive profits, it goes up because they’re being charged more by hospitals and doctors. In turn they pass it on to paying customers.

Add to that the massive influx of illegals that get free care and you’ve got a real problem.

Your solution is to create more of the same thing that caused the problem to begin with.

If liberals would give to charity the millions and millions they spend lobbying Congress to enact laws that steal our money to force us to comply with their liberty stealing, suffocating laws, we could easily handle people who fall on hard times.

Having the government be responsible for people is not the answer … that’s socialism. The answer is us taking care of each other through chartiable giving and other privately initiated means.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM

that’s socialism

No, we’re not even remotely close to socialism in this country.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Higher costs are the result of government. Medicare and Medicaid don’t pay the full dollar amount of cost. That cost must be found elsewhere … and it’s found in the people that have insurance and pay for their own medical care. Insurance goes up not because they’re making massive profits, it goes up because they’re being charged more by hospitals and doctors. In turn they pass it on to paying customers.

I don’t agree. I think the issue is greed.

I think the cost of tissues in hospitals is about
$30 bucks a box. And they charge us all.

I don’t think that’s the idea. I think that is pure darn greed.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM

So what about her “unfavorables”? Let her run and expose Obama even more for the fraud he is, if nothing else. She loses, so be it, but at least the Republicans offered up a true conservative this time. Let America make the choice towards less gov’t or more.

long_cat on November 13, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Is that in an election against Obama?

entagor on November 13, 2010 at 1:37 PM

No, we’re not even remotely close to socialism in this country.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Whatever you say Ann.

I don’t agree. I think the issue is greed.

I think the cost of tissues in hospitals is about
$30 bucks a box. And they charge us all.

AnninCA on November 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I see. So you’re saying it’s not the insurance companies … it’s the greedy hospitals that are causing the rise in costs.

Using your “government can save us all” logic, the government should be taking over the hospitals and clinics instead of trying to tell insurance companies what to do … right? I mean if the greedy hospitals, staffed with greedy doctors and nurse didn’t charge so much, then insurance companies wouldn’t have to charge as much.

You’re brilliant. I see a future in government for you.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Who the heck even bothers polling “adults” any more?

So they ask the people who are just too stupid or lazy to fill out a postcard application to register to vote their opinions on issues because . . . why? Their opinions don’t matter. They are just lost in the herd.

Palin does have too much negative baggage among independent voters, though. It would be very hard for her to win a national election unless she is able to improve that standing.

But every potential nominee has weaknesses, of course. And with the current mood among the slower-witted conservatives to demand purity of every candidate on every vote, it becomes difficult to imagine who could win both the nomination and the general election.

We need some guy to change his name to “Not Obama,” he would be a shoo-in.

Adjoran on November 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Palin does have too much negative baggage among independent voters, though.

Adjoran on November 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Like what?
I can think of no baggage, as in NONE, that she has among any voters.

Jenfidel on November 14, 2010 at 7:04 AM

@Jenfidel: Her daughter and her perceived stupidity. No, don’t make excuses or take exception: it doesn’t matter what you or I think, only what the public thinks, and it’s inarguable they don’t think she’d make a good president.

I hope people in love with the idea of Palin ’12 are willing to keep an open mind. I agree with the basic premise: if it’s a choice between winning with Mitt or Huck and losing with Sarah, I’ll go down with Palin. The US is too close to fiscal collapse to start another 6-8 year cycle of RINO dominance. If we’re going to enter a depression, let the blame fall where it belongs.

However, I don’t agree with the idea today that the 2012 field will not offer any economic conservatives except Palin. Every time someone points out that Palin would lose, people on the Sarah Express cry “well then who? Romney? Huckabee?” Remember that nobody knew who the hell Sarah Palin was 26 months ago and a scant year before the election, nobody could have picked Barack Obama out of a police lineup.

No one has even officially declared candidacy yet. We’re still over a year away. See what the others have to say.

HitNRun on November 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM

HitNRun on November 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM

I’d be delighted to see others step up, but that being said, Sarah Palin is the only is a fiscal conservative, a social conservative and a defense hawk.
And I require all 3 in my GOP candidate.

Further, I don’t buy your false premise that the “public” doesn’t like her.

Jenfidel on November 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM

RINO Romney, meh.

Dandapani on November 14, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Using your “government can save us all” logic, the government should be taking over the hospitals and clinics instead of trying to tell insurance companies what to do … right? I mean if the greedy hospitals, staffed with greedy doctors and nurse didn’t charge so much, then insurance companies wouldn’t have to charge as much.

You’re brilliant. I see a future in government for you.

darwin on November 13, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Well, what I think would work will never happen.

Here’s Ann’s utopia. I would like to see clinics, such as those “Doc in the Box” places. Most of the high costs of hospitals is that people can’t go to a simple clinic for stuff like flu in a child, cuts and accidents, a mistake in diabetic control….so they head to the ER room.

Then the ER rooms charge the government the high end of prices. I think we can deliver real healthcare better.

Then, I’d like to see the Federal involvement follow up and really solidify some excellent programs started in the past that just aren’t quite well know, such as the diabetes program. We know how to treat this, but it really requires follow-up and reinforcement.

Then, I’d like to see the Federal government do nothing to affect actual medical decisions but fund good solid research that suggests best practices. I’d like to see them stay OUT of end-of-life stuff entirely. It’s too personal and too individual. Yes, it may mean we pay for some people who simply are unrealistic or families that want to keep someone in a coma for 50 years…but that’s worth the price. It’s just awful to involve ourselves in other people’s dramas on these issues.

Then, I’d like to see a public option that is fairly priced, with varying levels of coverage. I think the private insurance industry could use a shot of competitiveness right now. So I part ways on pure market people here.

Note, I say, fair competitive prices. Top drawer coverage? Pay top drawer prices. But there could be other levels, too. I like this because I think most of us aren’t going to find jobs where there’s good coverage anymore. We need something, and it needs to be portable.

And what are the chances of this happening? Zero. LOL*

I’m a pragmatist. It’s just not going to happen in my lifetime.

AnninCA on November 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Palin’s negatives are interesting because they are already embedded in inaccurate myths.

It’s public person reputation versus reality. I’m not sure how any candidate overcomes that, other than do what she is doing….prove her leadership by leading.

AnninCA on November 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I think the private insurance industry could use a shot of competitiveness right now.

AnninCA on November 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Gee … I wonder why they’re not competitive? What could be holding them back?

It’s just a mystery. I mean, why they decide to not compete nationally, or let consumers decide what they’d like to cover is beyond me.

I’m simply stumped. Oh wait! It’s greed. That’s it, it’s nothing but pure greed.

Man, what we need is more government regulation and control. That’ll show those greedy insurance companies a thing or two. I always trust the government more than those evil, greedy private people.

Bureaucrats are inherently honest and trustworthy and never, never, ever ideological.

darwin on November 14, 2010 at 11:07 AM

It doesn’t. So what gives?

The poll is meaningless. That’s what gives.

Palin runs… she beats Romney. Then Obama.

Done.

xax on November 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Bureaucrats are inherently honest and trustworthy and never, never, ever ideological.

darwin on November 14, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Don’t take this personally. I enjoy your posts.

However, I think you inadvertedly put your finger on the difference between Independent voters who did swing right versus base right-wing voters.

I do not believe that the problems in the private sector are stimulated by government. I think that it’s far,far more complex than that explanation.

And that’s probably why I’m not ever going to be a far-right base type.

And that is probably why I’m an Independent, who thinks both sides are riduculous.

Get real, both sides. And soon.

AnninCA on November 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Get real, both sides. And soon.

AnninCA on November 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I’m sorry Ann, if you can’t even acknowledge that the government has stymied private health insurance competition and driven prices up, you’re nowhere near being “real”.

Private insurance can’t even compete nationwide. They’re limited to in-state.

Plus, as a result of government intrusion … ObamaCare … private insurance is now skyrocketing and businesses are dropping coverage right and left.

Another consequence of government meddling where it shouldn’t.

Oh … and my “side” isn’t far right. I simply concur with the vision our founders had.

darwin on November 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4