WSJ poll: Obama leads Romney by seven, Palin by 22

posted at 8:20 pm on December 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

It’s a poll of adults, not even of registered voters, and the sample’s probably tilted a bit too far towards Democrats (42/33 if you include leaners), so scale the Republican numbers up by four or five points. An interesting trend for Romney: After seeing his favorables dip just before the midterms, he’s now back to where he was in July 2009. An early indicator that as the ObamaCare debate recedes, some conservatives are turning less chilly towards him?

Note that the fourth and fifth columns, representing negative views, are down fully 10 points in just three months. As for Palin, looks like the Alaska show isn’t making a dent. In fact, for the first time, her combined unfavorables are at 50 percent. I wonder which of her rivals will be the first to suggest that maybe she’s not the best person to demand “electability” from the nominee. (Smart money’s on Huck!)

Overall, The One leads Romney 47/40 and Palin 55/33, which is in line with the spreads from Politico’s new poll too (40/33 versus Romney and 48/33 versus Palin). What makes that doubly depressing is that there are plenty of bad indicators for Obama in this poll, most notably the fact that 63 percent think the country’s headed in the wrong direction — an all-time high since he was sworn in. Maybe it’s a simple matter of skepticism about the GOP that’s leading the public to bitterly cling to The One: In WaPo’s new poll, he retains a small advantage in trust over Republicans even though Clinton and Bush trailed the opposing party by double digits after the 1994 and 2006 wipeouts, respectively.

Here’s a fascinating data point from the Journal poll that I’m not sure how to explain. In theory, the longer he’s in office, the more people should be willing to blame him for the state of the economy. And yet:

He was down to 56 percent a few months ago on the question of whether he inherited the economy and now suddenly he’s back up to 65 percent, almost identical to his numbers in October 2009. I have no theory for why that trend would reverse, unless the dip in September was due to heavy negative advertising by the GOP ahead of the midterms. Even if so, why would the numbers reverse? Why not just stay flat?

That’s not the only good news for him, either. This ought to make tomorrow’s House vote on the tax cuts deal a lead pipe cinch:

Fully 61 percent think it’s a fair deal, and 63 percent of Democrats say they want their political leaders to compromise more generally. And not just Democrats, either:

Even the GOP is split evenly, which makes me wonder if there aren’t more RINOs around these days than we thought. You know who that benefits? I think you do.

Exit question: How to explain this sudden surge in support for compromise? Is it a natural reaction to divided government? Public fatigue from gridlock? Or can we credit this one to a very special someone who knows a thing or two about triangulation?

Update: Conservatives4Palin e-mails to point out that the 22-point margin between Obama and Palin is an outlier compared to other polls. That’s true: PPP’s most recent poll also had them much closer at 51/42, which might be explained (in part) by the fact that that was a poll of voters, not just adults. Her unfavorables here are, however, in line with other polls, virtually all of which put her around or above 50 percent.


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 7

AllahPundit -
You left out a very important point – this is a WSJ-NBC poll, meaning it is cosponsored by NBC and you can bet our friends at 30 Rock had a lot of input.
bw222 on December 15, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Ah, this old meme – that every poll which shows Palin with high unfavorables / underwater is somehow biased or inaccurate.

It’s tiresome and laughable. I’m sorry, but yes, she really DOES have serious problems.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Well, good luck with that, but based on her performance in the vice-presidential debates, I’m going to choose to remain skeptical.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Based on the nothingness I’ve seen from all the rest, I’ll choose to remain dubious of these substitutes.

littleguy on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

By 22 points? Bullshirt!

Sekhmet on December 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Don’t underestimate ACORN :P

On a serious note, it’s not JUST about winning a “national” election. It’s more about winning in key states. Yeah, being down by 22 points would probably mean certain failure to win the key states … but I think we’ll see whoever wins focusing more on the states where the races really “matter” … I hate saying that, but it’s probably how it goes.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:16 PM

No. I don’t.
What exactly are you trying to say?

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM

The point is that someone, left, right or center, will always dismiss any given poll as biased or flawed. Coincidentally, it always seems to be the side whose favored issue or candidate is indicated to be trailing.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Rational Thought on December 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM
ajacksonian on December 15, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Thanks for 2 clear-eyed, rational assessments of the actual situation!

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM

gary4205 on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Gary, I refer you to my earlier post at

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:05 PM

After you’ve read it, we’ll tawk.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Rubio was born in Cuba, yes?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM

No, he was born in Miami. His parents are Cuban refugees.

Out of curiosity, you do know Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii, right?

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:52 PM

If not Rubio having been born in Cuba, then it’s Jindal who was not born in the U.S.

One of those two, anyway, not “natural born” – I’m just not looking these details up as I comment here at this hour, sorry.

I believe Jindal arrived as a child with his immigrant parents, who later became citizens as Jindal did but he was not “natural born” in that regard.

One or the other, Jindal or Rubio, I recall.

About Obama, who knows, he’s never substantiated with a genuine document where he was born or who he is, so who knows. Pelosi certainly didn’t check.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM

The point is that someone, left, right or center, will always dismiss any given poll as biased or flawed. Coincidentally, it always seems to be the side whose favored issue or candidate is indicated to be trailing.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Hmmm.
Chew on this: Rasmussen has a very good record of accuracy.
Daily Kos and their favorite pollsters do not.
Their reactions are purely partisan and most of the polls they like, they like because they reflect that their own Leftist ideology is dominant.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Out of curiosity, you do know Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii, right?

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Why do you ask?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I want some of the drugs the Palinistas are constantly consuming. They say ignorance is bliss. Damn, these folks must be rolling in mountains of bliss.

TheBlueSite on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

If not Rubio having been born in Cuba, then it’s Jindal who was not born in the U.S.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM

I think Jindal was born here, too. … though, if memory serves me right, his mother was a international student at the time…

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

True, but one must bear in mind that Reagan was one of the greatest debaters and rhetoricians of the modern age. Heck, he was already debating circles around Robert Kennedy, himself one of our great modern orators, more than 10 years earlier, in 1967. I’m afraid that, for all her strengths, the same can’t be said of Sarah Palin.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Actually:

Reagan was widely thought to have lost both his matchups against challenger Walter Mondale

LINK

KittyLowrey on December 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

I’m sorry, but yes, she really DOES have serious problems.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

So do all prospective candidates. Obama is not going to be easy to beat.

I want some of the drugs the Palinistas are constantly consuming. They say ignorance is bliss. Damn, these folks must be rolling in mountains of bliss.

TheBlueSite on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Stick your bliss where the sun don’t shine, mister.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM

How can that many still pick Obama over Palin? What is wrong with people? I thought after all he’s done to crap on this country, people would be fed up with him and vote for anyone, no matter who, over him.

silvernana on December 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Ah, this old meme – that every poll which shows Palin with high unfavorables / underwater is somehow biased or inaccurate.

It’s tiresome and laughable. I’m sorry, but yes, she really DOES have serious problems.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Who cares? I don’t care.
I’m supporting Sarah no matter how many K-Street Democrat polls they throw at me.
That being said, I’m more worried about Congress right now trying to burn the country down for the 2nd Christmas in a row!

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Why do you ask?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Oh, it’s just that our little talk on the DADT thread made me suspect you might be a Birther, and so it seems you are.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

The fact that you’re dumb enough to believe a poll that gives the Democrats a +9 when the latest legimate polls (Rasmussen and Gallup) show Republicans either even or +1 is hardly surprising.

bw222 on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I think Jindal was born here, too. … though, if memory serves me right, his mother was a international student at the time…

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

No, actually, I think his mother was pregnant with him WHEN she came here.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Bobby Jindal, born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 10th, 1971.

Mark Rubio, born in Miami…

Obviously, I was incorrect in what I’d recalled.

The “natural born” Constitutional requirement addresses more than geographical birth, however.

So I WAS CORRECT in stating that neither of these is “natural born”.

They ARE “native born” as Obama maintains he is (born on U.S. soil, geography_) but NOT “natural born” to U.S. citizens.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Sounds like some of the Palin supporters. So blinded by the celebrity, but so unwilling to notice even the tiniest of flaws.

Knucklehead on December 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Our concern trolls sure are really concernedly concerned today. That trip to Haiti must have garnered far more goodwill than most thought.

I know the White House was scrambling to say that yes they agreed with her on humanitarian aid after one of the idiot dems said we should cut it off! She hammered them good and scared the crap out of them.

Something has you trolls crawling out from under your rocks that’s for damned sure.

gary4205 on December 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM

How can that many still pick Obama over Palin? What is wrong with people? I thought after all he’s done to crap on this country, people would be fed up with him and vote for anyone, no matter who, over him.

silvernana on December 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM

The Left demonized the Right for pretty much the whole last decade…..sadly, it is going to take a while for the damage to be undone.

terryannonline on December 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I was wrong as well, Rubio was born in Miami.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

The “natural born” Constitutional requirement addresses more than geographical birth, however.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

True… but is it (legally speaking) clear if Jindal is NOT a natural born citizen?

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Why do you ask?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Oh, it’s just that our little talk on the DADT thread made me suspect you might be a Birther, and so it seems you are.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

You’re reading my “little talk,” however, so I’d say you’re just trolling here for to exercise your anti-social anxieties and other emotional problems.

At least you’re trolling me and I’m keeping your fleas off the other decent people here. Be my guest.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Something has you trolls crawling out from under your rocks that’s for damned sure.

gary4205 on December 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Gary, hold your fire. You can disagree with Knucklehead, but I can assure you she’s not a concern troll… just a concerned Conservative.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Lourdes, my dear, if I could wrap you up and give you as a Christmas gift, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

You beat me to it. Sorry.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:30 PM

The “natural born” Constitutional requirement addresses more than geographical birth, however.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Not until SCOTUS comes out and says so. For the moment, and since we have now had 2 presidents at least whose parents were not citizens, it’s not a requirement. Birth here is sufficient, Federalist papers notwithstanding.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:30 PM

lol.

The Palinistas are delusional.

She’s would be a national joke if she ran for president.

She would be a power broker if she just stayed out of it.

rickyricardo on December 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Sounds like some of the Palin supporters. So blinded by the celebrity, but so unwilling to notice even the tiniest of flaws.

Knucklehead on December 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM

PalinDrones: their drivel sounds the same foward as it does backwards.

darwin-t on December 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Sounds like some of the Palin supporters. So blinded by the celebrity, but so unwilling to notice even the tiniest of flaws.

Knucklehead on December 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM

PalinDrones: their drivel sounds the same foward as it does backwards.

darwin-t on December 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Are you trying to contribute or just stir the pot?

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:32 PM

The “natural born” Constitutional requirement addresses more than geographical birth, however.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

True… but is it (legally speaking) clear if Jindal is NOT a natural born citizen?

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Last I read about this, “natural born” as the Constitution declares as a requirement for the Presidency has been manipulated and whittled away by opinions of a variety of wants.

So I think, also, from last I read, that the Supreme Court should, eventually, take up this issue and iron-out just what, specifically, it takes to fulfill the requirement of “natural born”.

We KNOW that “native born” means born on U.S. soil, but then the Constitution ALSO requires a President to be “natural born.”

So the Framers obviously had a special and additional meaning in mind there, born in the U.S. but also born in the U.S. as “natural born” meaning, what…to U.S. citizens is what most have concluded (Federal Papers addresses this).

But the requirement having been cast aside (also manipulated by) Obama == who made a deal in his campaign out of announcing he was “native born” (his campaign website) and posting that graphic file on Kos that he claims was a “birth certificate” (but isn’t, been proving and it’s obviously so that it isn’t as he claims) == anyway, the Const. req. has obviously been manipulated, ignored and likely violated, so it has to be decidedly proven at this point for future candidates and proven by an iron-clad definition as to just what’s required.

Constitution says “natural born” as a U.S. citizen. Born on U.S. soil (“native born”)=== AND === a “natural born” citizen (to U.S. citizen parents, is most people’s conclusion as to what that additional req. means.).

Someone born in U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens would NOT be “natural born” per the popular definition of the requirement, and also not per the requirement as defined in the Federalist Papers.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Are you trying to contribute or just stir the pot?

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:32 PM

The latter results in the former

darwin-t on December 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Hmmm.
Chew on this: Rasmussen has a very good record of accuracy.
Daily Kos and their favorite pollsters do not.
Their reactions are purely partisan and most of the polls they like, they like because they reflect that their own Leftist ideology is dominant.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I hate to contradict you, Jenfidel, but at least for the 2010 election, that wasn’t exactly the case – see here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If you scroll down to the chart at the bottom, you’ll see that DailyKos’s current pollster, Public Policy Polling, actually had a lower average error than Rasmussen this time around!

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Lourdes, my dear, if I could wrap you up and give you as a Christmas gift, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:29 PM

I’d refuse any “gift” from you. Stop insulting me and Christmas with your ninny pejoratives and phony “caring”. You’ve made it clear you hold me in low regard, your cred. is debatable accordingly, you’ve made your drama known, so move on.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:36 PM

darwin-t on December 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Exactamundo!

Seems Gary can’t refute my comments at 9:05 P.M., but he loves throwing the “troll” aspersion around.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:36 PM

On a serious note, it’s not JUST about winning a “national” election. It’s more about winning in key states. Yeah, being down by 22 points would probably mean certain failure to win the key states … but I think we’ll see whoever wins focusing more on the states where the races really “matter” … I hate saying that, but it’s probably how it goes.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Finally someone who gets it!

Winning the presidency isn’t about winning a national contest it’s about winning a bunch of smaller contests. The winner of the most of these is the next President.

I have yet to find someone (a serious someone) who can point to a state Bush won in 2004 that Palin wouldn’t win in 2012. Bush won by a comfortable margin in 2004.

When someone CREDIBLE can do the math and come up with a different answer than a Palin win, then we can talk.

gary4205 on December 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM

If you scroll down to the chart at the bottom, you’ll see that DailyKos’s current pollster, Public Policy Polling, actually had a lower average error than Rasmussen this time around!

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Oh, my Gosh, a Kos Kiddie. Why am I not surprised?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM

True, but one must bear in mind that Reagan was one of the greatest debaters and rhetoricians of the modern age. blah, blah, blah

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Oh, yeah…and this:

Anderson topped Reagan in the Debate,
Poll Finds

LINK

KittyLowrey on December 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Oh dear. Oh my. A heavily skewed 2010 NBC/WSJ Poll is spelling 2012 doom for Sarah Palin!

I’m disappointed that so many fall for this drek.

No matter. We always understood it would be an ordeal. The faithful will find their way past the many trials and auguries.

rrpjr on December 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Kos Kiddie? No. 538 reader? Yes, indeed!

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM

NO GOP NOMINEE will be unattacked. The media will Palinize them like you’ve never seen before.

In the eyes of the D.C. Media all Republicans want to starve children and kick Granny out on the snowy curb to fend for herself.

Throw in “Net Neutrality” and the Dream Act and it’s goodbye GOP…..and hello Re-elected Obama.

Any guesses on how soon after the DOTUS might be re-elected before he would be asking for the “rule by decree” that Chavez is now asking for?

PappyD61 on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Nate Silver and the NYTimes aren’t biased?
Please.
BTW, are you aware that Silver’s 538 is a polling outfit and that he’s in competition with Rasmussen?

Rasmussen knows he was off in the NV race, but 2010 was a strange year.

My point about Leftist ideology tilting polls and preferences for same still stands.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:40 PM

I think Jindal was born here, too. … though, if memory serves me right, his mother was a international student at the time…

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

No, actually, I think his mother was pregnant with him WHEN she came here.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Yes, Jindal was born in Louisiana but his parents weren’t U.S. citizens at that time, so he’s not “natural born” per what I’ve already discussed (read up) — can’t retype it, tired of this, people either get it or they don’t.

Rubio’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens, either, I think, though his parents being from Cuba they could be said to be “immediately” granted such per the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy (immigrants from Cuba even illegally entering are granted U.S. asylum if not citizenship if they “touch a foot” to U.S. soil…something like that, don’t quote me).

I like Jindal (and Rubio) quite a bit, I’d support either for the Presidency based upon their politics and beliefs and abilities, but, I wouldn’t support further tweaking of the Constitution to accommodate a like or political want.

The issue has to be ironed out if we hoist any more candidates to the Presidency who were not born in the U.s. or not born here to U.S. citizen parents. My only point.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM

The fair deal thing for the tax agreement is a load of crap. Most people don’t know the pork that’s been served up with it. Point out the pork and the numbers drop.

Rocks on December 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM

True, but one must bear in mind that Reagan was one of the greatest debaters and rhetoricians of the modern age. blah, blah, blah

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM

And Carter-Reagan? A draw:

LINK

KittyLowrey on December 15, 2010 at 9:42 PM

She has some things she needs to work on. And yes, those are flaws. Gotta problem with that?

Knucklehead on December 15, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Nope, not at all. All the others do, too — some in spades. Gotta problem with that?

littleguy on December 15, 2010 at 9:42 PM

NO GOP NOMINEE will be unattacked. The media will Palinize them like you’ve never seen before.

PappyD61 on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM

This is true. This is why I’m not interested in settling for a “safe” “conservative” like say Romney. Unless Romney really changes in the next few months I just don’t know if I could support him on any level (even in the end, it might be hard depending on which state I was voting in at the time).

We’re better going for a good conservative. Palin has potential. Pence too. I could probably manage to vote for the Pelosian known as Newt. We’ll see. In the end, though, they’re all going to be Palinized no matter how safe they play it now.

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Kos Kiddie? No. 538 reader? Yes, indeed!

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Were you born sarcastic or were you just abused by sarcastic parenting?

You’re the Kos Kiddie here, not that everyone else hasn’t already noticed.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:43 PM

so let me get this straight. Allah links a poll which shows every single point to be be an outliar and yet he wasnt’s to give the poll credit?

Let me break it down for you all. All of these polls are oversampling Liberals because they want to push two or three different memes since the election.

the biggest one is they want to push the meme that the “public” wants the GOp to compromise with the liberals. which the elction said in no uncertain terms No we didn’t.

Second that Palin is unelectable. The oversampling of dems will give Mitt/huch better numbers than Palin.

third that Obama is not a massive failure.

A 42/33 split? Give me a freaking break. Nov 2rd the GOP was leading the dem in party id. Now we are expected to believ ein the last months the GOP lost 10pts in party id? Yeah right…..

Bloomberg’s poll was the same way. As will as politco’s All of these polls are oversampling dems and thus they all get about the same results.

what you all thought the liberals were going to roll over and sue for peace after the elections?

unseen on December 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM

My point about Leftist ideology tilting polls and preferences for same still stands.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:40 PM

As does my point about people in general discounting polls that show results they find unpleasant.

And actually, you’re wrong about 538 – Silver conducts no polls on his own. He merely aggregates and weights polls according to an algorithm he’s designed. So, no, he’s not actually in competition with Rasmussen – his polls are taken as input, along with all the other reputable firms.

And that average error score isn’t biased, it’s an objective measure. You could calculate it for yourself for Rasmussen and PPP, if you don’t believe him.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Ixnay to legislators running for president. They are always a disaster. They don’t know how to lead; they only know how to create gridlock. I like Pence and Rubio, they both have promise, but they’re both going to have to serve either as VP or as governor of their own states before I’m going to get behind either of them for POTUS.

As for Sarah and those who underestimate her, she always reminds me of the contestants on “Survivor,” usually from the South, who are charming and lovable but whom their opponents write off as a bunch of rubes who aren’t nearly cunning enough to win the game. Yet, in 20 seasons, many of the winners and most of those who made it to the final two are those dumb ol’ hicks. People who subscribe to the stereotypes about her, to the media-generated narrative that she is “unserious” and unintelligent do so at their own peril I think.

NoLeftTurn on December 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Out of curiosity, does the Constitution requirement apply to those running for VP as well considering this person is second in line to the presidency.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

The Gop better find someone to start a conservative polling firm and they better do it soon. And no rassmesun is not conservative.

the liberals are winning the PR war by using fake polls like this to frame the narrative….

unseen on December 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

True, but one must bear in mind that Reagan was one of the greatest debaters and rhetoricians of the modern age. Heck, he was already debating circles around Robert Kennedy, himself one of our great modern orators, more than 10 years earlier, in 1967. I’m afraid that, for all her strengths, the same can’t be said of Sarah Palin.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM

The Reagan/Kennedy debate is a classic. While I haven’t seen the Alaska debates, the VP debate didn’t go well for Palin. She really needs to work on the national questions and parrying. And yes, she’s no Reagan, at least not yet. She’s still young. Who knows how she’ll come across in 10 to 20 years?

As someone who thinks Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history, comparing Palin to him is offensive in every way. She loves her country, we get that, but she doesn’t have a tenth of the knowledge, depth on any of the issues, talent, or likeability Reagan had.

I wish my fellow conservatives would pull their heads out of their collective backsides and drop this idiotic celebrity worship and get down to business of ensuring Obama doesn’t have another 4 years to destroy this nation.

TheBlueSite on December 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM

I don’t consider the comparison offensive, but rather inaccurate.

Why not?
Do you have any evidence that the Media, including their pollsters, are honest and that their polls are honest?
(i.e. that they aren’t push-polling to get the answer they want?)

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:06 PM

We know the outcome of most elections ahead of time. How? Polling. If Palin was beating Obama in the polling I imagine you’d be touting polls. Having said that, i think this particular poll is off.

Americans elect Governors as Presidents for a reason. Being a SUCCESSFUL GOVERNOR is the only path to being a SUCCESSFUL President.

Abraham Lincoln for starters.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

One word. BULLSHIT.

roninacreage on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Kos Kiddie? No. 538 reader? Yes, indeed!

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM

It’s cute that you think there’s a difference.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

You beat me to it. Sorry.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:30 PM

No worries. What with the Concern Trolls, Kos Kiddies and other Leftwingers here who pose as as “conservative” this or that, one cannot revise an error or misstatement (or even misspelling, in my experience) quickly enough.

What I’d been recalling (source of my earlier misunderstanding, misstatement — seems I do know they were both born in U.S. but I’d been focusing instead on the “natural born” thing and typed before I considered what, etc.) was as to the “natural born” requirement.

The Federalist Papers have what I consider to be conclusive and reasonable discussion about what “natural born” means but the meaning has been ignored, rolled over and manipulated by later politiicians, such as, specifically, Obama and the Demos (Nancy Pelosi’s hijinks with her manipulaton of the Hawaii paperwork declaring Obama a candidate is an indication that she/Democrats were aware of what was what and violated the definition anyway).

It’s likely going to have to take a Supreme Court ruling on what the requirement means to resolve this — even Judge Thomas has said the Court has bypassed a degree of responsibility in not considering this issue earlier, so it’s reason to indicate they’re considering it already, unofficially.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Hmmm.
Chew on this: Rasmussen has a very good record of accuracy.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

He used to.

I enjoyed his switch to a likely voter model…..until it ultimately gave inaccurate results in the 2010 election, compared to what the actual vote totals wound up being.

As Allah pointed out, even if you give each Republican in this poll an additional 4 or 5 points, it doesn’t much matter – Palin’s unfavorables here are pretty much in line with many, many, MANY other polls. I do not know how many polls people have to hammer some of you “Palindrones” over the head with before you’ll just acknowledge that maybe America isn’t as enamored with her as you are.

Which brings me to an earlier comment….

I really don’t see how people can maintain that Sarah Palin can win a general election against Obama at this point.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM

No? Can’t see how? It’s an easy combination of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Some people just LOVE Sarah Palin, so – much like some of the Obama zombies back in 2008, and to a certain extent how some shellshocked progressives feel after the 2010 election – they just can’t fathom how someone can NOT love or respect Sarah Palin. The concept that many Americans don’t view her as a serious, legitimate potential POTUS is alien to them, and thus, they engage in a crapload of wishful thinking. All polls are biased, don’t you know. Cause they HAVE to be, it can’t POSSIBLY be that so many Americans think that Palin is not qualified.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Abraham Lincoln for starters.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

So plunging the country into a civil war is your idea of success?

unseen on December 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM

We know the outcome of most elections ahead of time. How? Polling. If Palin was beating Obama in the polling I imagine you’d be touting polls. Having said that, i think this particular poll is off.
toliver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Actually, we don’t know the outcome of most elections ahead of time, viz. Ronald Reagan in 1980, Gerald Ford/Carter in 1976 and Kennedy/Nixon in 1960.
Also, remember that famous headline: “Dewey Wins!” (over Truman)

Also your point about non-Governors making great Presidents is irrelevant.
In Lincoln’s day and before, the men who ran for President were statesmen and not Ivy League graduate school-trained policy wonks.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

It’s cute that you think there’s a difference.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Not a 538 fan, eh? You should really check it out, he posts a lot of interesting analysis.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Not a 538 fan, eh? You should really check it out, he posts a lot of interesting analysis.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I loved that site back when I was a Democrat. Now, not so much.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM

MeatHeadinCA on December 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Out of curiosity, does the Constitution requirement apply to those running for VP as well considering this person is second in line to the presidency.

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Here’s MY GUESS: I think anyone in immediate line for the Presidency would be required to fulfill the requirements for the Presidency.

OR they’d be disqualified for the Presidency should their placement come up at any time, and the next in line who would be fit (qualified per the Constitution) would stand to fill the job.

So a V.P. would, I’m guessing here, have to be Constitutionally qualified for the Presidency, same as a President (both are the Executive Branch, and the req. seems to equate with that Branch or associate with the Branch, as in, both jobs)…

Speaker of the House, maybe not (third in line for the Pres.), since that person is elected on Congressional requirements, criteria (Congressperson, Representative), so they could be elected as a NON “natural born” U.S. citizen BUT NOT BE qualified for the Presidency and would be passed over for next in line.

My best guess, anyway.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

it can’t POSSIBLY be that so many Americans think that Palin is not qualified.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

While her supporters aren’t allowed to think she’s qualified and if we point out the many reasons she is qualified, we’re ignored and/or abused.

BTW, Palin’s electability/how she polls now and the reasons we support her potential run for the presidency are 2 distinctly different things.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Not a 538 fan, eh? You should really check it out, he posts a lot of interesting analysis.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

It’s obvious where you acquire all your pejoratives.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I loved that site back when I was a Democrat. Now, not so much.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Well, I don’t see why you can’t still enjoy it as a Republican. I do, after all. I may not agree with the commentary, but the quantitative analyses are dashed interesting.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

It can’t POSSIBLY be that so many Americans think that Palin is not qualified.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

With the constant “she’s not qualified” refrain coming from GOP and Democrats alike, why would the average lemming think differently? She will prove she’s up to the job during the campaign. That is an awfully important thing, you know, since running a campaign proved Obama had leadership and executive skills. If it worked for the lemmings once, it’ll work again. Nothing succeeds like success.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

How can that many still pick Obama over Palin? What is wrong with people? I thought after all he’s done to crap on this country, people would be fed up with him and vote for anyone, no matter who, over him.

silvernana on December 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I think the big omission here is not acknowledging the question “many still pick Obama over ??Romney??”

Despite the non-stop bloodbattle on the blogs, people have little-to-no-idea who “Romney” is other than “front-runner!!!” and “former Gov of Massachusetts!” the latter of which, IMO, is a benefit for him in general amongst these early polls since the state doesn’t fit the “Bible Belt” narrative. Yes, kids, that matters (hence, Jindal is DOA).

With regard to Palin: she has not “gone Presidential” yet. She’s “gone Rogue.” Despite APs conclusions, Palin’s “Alaska” show is most definitely a net benefit for her personally. But she has not used that benefit to her advantage politically — yet.

“She isn’t out there being Presidential.” It’s what we keep hearing. But that’s because it isn’t the time now. Politijunkies want Palin to blow her load NOW and do all of the “necessary steps” to cheap-pop her poll numbers to demonstrate electability. For regular folks — the majority of the electorate — it’s far too soon. Coming out now to all the media would be a recipe for disaster for a Palin 2012 campaign.

On the other hand, Romney is — to the general mind of the electorate — still a big ?. The advantage he has in this poll over Palin right now is indicative only of his under-the-radar qualities, and “anything but Obama!” in very general terms. And he’s STILL losing.

The “Palinized” version of Romney comes out? He would be wishing he just had a 7-point deficit.

lansing quaker on December 15, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Not until SCOTUS comes out and says so. For the moment, and since we have now had 2 presidents at least whose parents were not citizens, it’s not a requirement. Birth here is sufficient, Federalist papers notwithstanding.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 9:30 PM

As earlier explained, I agree that it’s going to require a Supreme Court decision on what the meaning of the requirement, “natural born” as a U.S. citizen means, to sort this out and prevent further violations of the Constitution in regards Presidents.

But who was the second President who was born to parents who were not U.S. citizens?

Obama is one, who was the second, that you have in mind there? Just asking.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

What would really be interesting is if the Supremes ruled that candidates must be “natural born” as indicated in the Federalist Papers, would that therefore nullify Barry’s presidency? If so, then would every bill he signed into law be invalid as well? Wouldn’t it be nice!

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Oh, Lourdes. I feel no need to cast aspersions upon you. You do well enough on your own.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

So plunging the country into a civil war is your idea of success?

unseen on December 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Epic history fail.

Lincoln inherited a nation suffering from decades of addiction to a practice that was as addictive as meth. He was just the poor sod who happened to be in office when the South, at a crisis due to their dead-end economy based on slaves and cotton, attacked a military installation.

By the time he was sworn into office, war of some kind was simply unavoidable.

Dark-Star on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Well, I don’t see why you can’t still enjoy it as a Republican. I do, after all. I may not agree with the commentary, but the quantitative analyses are dashed interesting.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Of course you agree with the commentary and enjoy it because you’re a Democrat yourself!

Real conservatives have an aversion to lies, hence our tendency to avoid hot beds of lies and Liberals like Daily Kos.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Ah, this old meme – that every poll which shows Palin with high unfavorables / underwater is somehow biased or inaccurate.

It’s tiresome and laughable. I’m sorry, but yes, she really DOES have serious problems.

Vyce on December 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Sorry, kid, but any poll that has NBC attached to it is a joke. And that does not only include Palin polls.

Del Dolemonte on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Abraham Lincoln for starters.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

So plunging the country into a civil war is your idea of success?

unseen on December 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM

That’s the problem with making sweeping statememnts [and i know it wasn’t you that said “the only way to become Prez…”. Oh yeah, Kennedy comes to mind.

A better way to say it:

The best preparation for POTUS would be a governor.

Actually, we don’t know the outcome of most elections ahead of time, viz. Ronald Reagan in 1980, Gerald Ford/Carter in 1976 and Kennedy/Nixon in 1960.
Also, remember that famous headline: “Dewey Wins!” (over Truman)

Also your point about non-Governors making great Presidents is irrelevant.
In Lincoln’s day and before, the men who ran for President were statesmen and not Ivy League graduate school-trained policy wonks.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I watch election results every two years. There are few surprises. Why? Polling. The only races that are suspenseful are the close races. How do we know they are close? Polling.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Well, I don’t see why you can’t still enjoy it as a Republican. I do, after all. I may not agree with the commentary, but the quantitative analyses are dashed interesting.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

You’re not a Republican, except in your Role Playing.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Primaries first, then we concern ourselves with the general. But since we’re playing, I say Palin wins the general vs. Obama by over ten points in the popular vote, and wins every state except New York.

pugwriter on December 15, 2010 at 10:03 PM

By the time he was sworn into office, war of some kind was simply unavoidable.

Dark-Star on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Maybe, but then again, maybe the separate states could have abolished slavery themselves if given enough time.

Over 500,000 dead is a huge price to pay.
We’ll never know what might have happened if history were re-written, though.
Lincoln represented the heavy hand of Federalism to the South.
Perhaps if he’d been a Governor, he might have felt the responsibility of imposing a federal solution to the states’ problem even more.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Oh, Lourdes. I feel no need to cast aspersions upon you. You do well enough on your own.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Oh, Inkblots, you’ve used your pejoratives up for now, so ::sigh:: I offer you the world’s tiniest violin.

You should go and explore blogspot, they host — and it’s “free” — sites so persons such as yourself can sigh and opine and ponder the belly of the beast all day and night long. You can even write as numerous identities on one site and maintain the Role Playing that way.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Polling.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I have not ever nor will I ever let a poll tell me how to vote or whom to vote for.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Of course you agree with the commentary and enjoy it because you’re a Democrat yourself!

Real conservatives have an aversion to lies, hence our tendency to avoid hot beds of lies and Liberals like Daily Kos.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

You know, it’s not as if I popped up here yesterday; if you go back and look over my comments, I don’t see any way possible way for you to conclude I’m a Democrat.

I’m a conservative, and a registered Republican. And yes, I do on occasion read DailyKos, and I frequently listen to NPR in the car. It’s my own opinion that it’s important to find out what arguments the other side is making, so as to more effectively rebut them when debating, whether online or face to face. Do you disagree?

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Obama is one, who was the second, that you have in mind there? Just asking.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Chester Arthur. Mother was born in Quebec and father in Ireland. Some people think Arthur was born in Quebec too and thus ineligible but no proof i guess. It comes up when you look at “natural-born” internet stuff. Here’s one.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Palin must be analyzing these polls herself. If they continue on this track, she’ll have to make a definitive statement about not running and back out of this thing gracefully.

sherry on December 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Yes, I believe he was, but I’m not absolutely certain.

I also like West, Jindal, and Ryan, et al, but I’m crazy about Pence.

The argument from many Palin supporters involves what they perceive to be Pence’s lack of executive experience.

They argue he should run for governor rather than President because he hasn’t got the executive quals. To that, I have two points:

1. As a necessary precursor to the argument that Pence isn’t ready to be POTUS is the reasoning that Barry lacked executive experience and is a disaster, so therefore, the argument concludes that Pence isn’t ready and should run for Governor instead.

For the sake of this argument, I’ll characterize executive experience as being a set of cognitive abilities combined with experiential insight that enables a person to do the following: to think critically and abstractly, to prioritize and manage multiple tasks, to initiate and thwart actions, to monitor and adapt to market conditions, to be farsighted so as to anticipate and plan future action or behavior and the resultant outcomes, to problem solve and make informed decisions, to exercise good decisive judgment, and to communicate effectively with diverse audiences. (Note: I’ve deliberately left out leadership skills and inspiration). This skill set isn’t necessarily exclusive to executive level managers, and therefore, a non-executive manager may also be adept and even masterful in these areas. Furthermore, an executive level manager may not be particularly proficient at some or even most of these functions, but still remain an executive. In fact, most top executive managers are not fully competent at all the aforementioned executive skills, which is why they have other executive level employees who are. Concluding that Pence wouldn’t be an effective chief executive because he hasn’t been one before isn’t true. He could well be.

2. Many have argued that Palin is better suited to be POTUS because she has executive experience. What some fail to mention is that she doesn’t have nearly the legislative experience that Pence does. Pence has a decade of experience serving in the US House of Representatives under his belt. Legislators, like Pence, know how the US government works and also know personally many of the other members of both legislative branches. Pence’s relationships with these members give him an advantage in forging initiatives and working collaboratively with lawmakers. His experience does not necessarily mean that he’s a consummate “DC insider” either. He votes his conscience, which is reflected by his solid conservative record. Palin’s lack of legislative experience is primarily because she has almost always been en executive– Her legislative experience is from serving on a City Council.

My point is not to knock Palin or her experience, but rather to dispute the notion that Pence’s experience is somehow less important or presidential than hers. Both are good potential candidates and both represent core conservative principles, but you know, Bobby Jindal has a strong record of both executive and legislative experience and he’s a solid candidate as well. In my view, Pence’s oratory excellence may push him ahead in the primaries and awaken a sleepy electorate that may not know anything about him yet. Just wait until they do!

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 9:05 PM

You are certifiably insane. I mean certifiable.

Being a successful executive doesn’t happen in THEORY you moron, it happens in real life.

Hell, IN THEORY, Mitt Romney looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but IN REALITY he was the very definition of disaster, and that doesn’t even count RomneyCare. The guy sucked as Governor. He simply did not have the ability to do the job effectively.

ON THE OTHER HAND people like you piss and moan that Palin’s resume is “light.” (never mind the fact has been doing this for twenty years) In your warped mind,”in theory” she’s not qualified.

However, IN REALITY, Palin is one of the most successful and effective Chief Executives in the nation. She had a 90+ percent approval rate in Alaska pre-Obama and his thugs.

She’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only can she show up and do the mundane day to day stuff that a CEO must do, she has also proven, beyond a shadow of doubt that she can do big thing, powerful things, things other governors had promised the Alaskan people for nearly 50 years (and she did them in two years)

It’s not for nothing that in Rick Perry’s book he points to Alaska …. Sarah Palin’s Alaska …. as the only other state that has it’s fiscal house in order. Rick Perry is another powerful Governor, BTW. HE could be President.

Back To Palin, she has proven over two decades that she is a leader among leaders. She has the ability to get things done, to form coalitions, that others only dream of.

She was able to take a hostile state house, the GOP establishment HATED her after she sent some of their comrades to prison, and the democrats were well, democrats.

And yet, she was able to get AGIA passed with only one vote (by a proven corrupt politician) against it. This was probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislation anywhere in quite some time, but she did it. She did what others said was impossible.

I said that to say that your idiotic notion that she doesn’t know how a legislature works is laughable, at best.

As I said you are certifiably insane if you think Pence, or any one not a successful Governor, is ready to be President, ESPECIALLY now.

Jesus man, I LIKE Mike Pence but he has shown NONE of the skills it takes to be President in GOOD TIMES, let alone now.

There is only one way he can prove he is ready and that’s by doing. He can go be Governor and prove he has the skill, temperament, judgment and ability to be Governor. THEN, and ONLY THEN he can be considered ready. Not before.

Palin (and other SUCCESSFUL governors) have proven their ability. One doesn’t have to worry whether they will do stupid crap.

Pence has a lot better chance of being our Obama, clueless and out of his element, than a successful President. That’s just fact. He’s an unknown. An unproven.

These are facts pal. I can’t help that you are obviously crazy and don’t get it, but these are facts.

You don’t go from being a member of an overpaid debate club to being an able, successful President any more than you go from being a community organizer to one.

Good intentions do not make a Chief Executive. Doing the job successful does.

Wise up, you look foolish in this latest rant of yours.

gary4205 on December 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Hi, simplesimon!

Del Dolemonte on December 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Polling.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

BTW, thanks for ignoring my historical examples:
The polls didn’t show Reagan winning in 1980, or Carter in ’76 or Kennedy in ’60 or Truman in 1952 or if they did, it wasn’t until right before the election.

Polls are useless if they’re slanted and usually they are because they’re for the Media and the Media is skewed to the Left and to Democrats.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Palin must be analyzing these polls herself. If they continue on this track, she’ll have to make a definitive statement about not running and back out of this thing gracefully.

sherry on December 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Which is exactly what Reagan did when he was over 20 points behind Carter in the polls./

pugwriter on December 15, 2010 at 10:10 PM

We KNOW that “native born” means born on U.S. soil, but then the Constitution ALSO requires a President to be “natural born.”

So the Framers obviously had a special and additional meaning in mind there, born in the U.S. but also born in the U.S. as “natural born” meaning, what…to U.S. citizens is what most have concluded (Federal Papers addresses this).

But the requirement having been cast aside (also manipulated by) Obama == who made a deal in his campaign out of announcing he was “native born” (his campaign website) and posting that graphic file on Kos that he claims was a “birth certificate” (but isn’t, been proving and it’s obviously so that it isn’t as he claims) == anyway, the Const. req. has obviously been manipulated, ignored and likely violated, so it has to be decidedly proven at this point for future candidates and proven by an iron-clad definition as to just what’s required.

Constitution says “natural born” as a U.S. citizen. Born on U.S. soil (“native born”)=== AND === a “natural born” citizen (to U.S. citizen parents, is most people’s conclusion as to what that additional req. means.).

Someone born in U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens would NOT be “natural born” per the popular definition of the requirement, and also not per the requirement as defined in the Federalist Papers.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 9:34 PM

You’re wrong. The President is only required to be “natural born”, not “native born”:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Jimbo3 on December 15, 2010 at 10:10 PM

I have not ever nor will I ever let a poll tell me how to vote or whom to vote for.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:05 PM

That’s well and good, but not the question. We mustn’t disparage most or all of polling when we don’t like the results.

AP does a good job breaking down the sample and internals.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Palin must be analyzing these polls herself. If they continue on this track, she’ll have to make a definitive statement about not running and back out of this thing gracefully.

sherry on December 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM

And what if she runs, not because of what the Leftist MSM polls are saying, but because she loves this country and wants to help turn it back to Constitutional conservative governance?

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I’d be nice if some of the other supposed GOP candidates would shoot off their mouths as much as their supporters.

CurtZHP on December 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM

the VP debate didn’t go well for Palin.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Actually:

The second debate of the 2008 general election pitted the vice-presidential candidates: Democratic Senator Joe Biden and Republican Governor Sarah Palin. Palin won the contest because she didn’t appear to be out of her league: before the debate, 43 percent of Americans saw her as “knowledgeable about the important issues;” after the contest, her rating improved to 66 percent.

~snip~

LINK

KittyLowrey on December 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM

It really won’t matter who the nominee is if this spineless House and Senate don’t stand up and start drawing some lines in the sand. Four senators are about to vote for cloture on this $1.1 trillion spending bill: Collins, Bennett, Bond and Voinovich. Way to rein them in Mitch.

This “tax” bill is egregiously loaded with lard, but Bohener/McConnell just whine that it’s the best they could do. And the list goes on.

They’re going to show the public that it’s just business as usual. The nominee won’t stand a chance if these Keystone Cops don’t grow some anatomy and take charge and do what they were elected to do on 11/2.

TxAnn56 on December 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM

If someone bats their eyes at them, things like that, too many people are swayed and affected as if drugged by the idea of “celebrity”.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Sounds like some of the Palin supporters. So blinded by the celebrity, but so unwilling to notice even the tiniest of flaws.

Knucklehead on December 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I agree about the non-productive if not counter-productive effects of the heavy-handed criticism that many a devoted Palin fan-sort is displaying.

It’s not PRODUCTIVE campaigning to knock people down or otherwise “attack” anyone who questions or isn’t committed to a candidate (any candidate, respectively) and I think — my experience reading the internet == that some Palin advocates go far overboard in condemning anyone who isn’t (already) fully committed to Palin for the Presidency.

What that accomplishes is more animosity and it contributes to a weaker Palin, not a stronger Palin.

So, my suggestion would be to advocate FOR your candidate and try to not go dark or condemning on anyone who isn’t of your point of view as to which candidate is preferred. THE ISSUES can be argued out but the personalities as to the candidates ought to stay out of it.

I think much of the defensiveness about Palin originates from the outrageous, even sick, attacks on Palin by the Left and Left media, so some of this is understandable. But in my experience, again, many of the Palin supporters include simple questions by Conservatives or Independents, even, as threats and then retailiate with far too much force against them.

Maybe people just need to be sold on the person for the Presidency, and if you can’t ask questions or voice questions about a candidate, it’s not a good indication of that candidate’s position.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM

AP does a good job breaking down the sample and internals.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM

For someone who doesn’t like Palin and who is a self-admitted “candy ass RINO,” yes, but that’s not really saying much.

Palin is the only real conservative even in the wings right now. (Pence is conservative, too, but I digress.)
Jindal says he’s not running.
Rubio hasn’t taken his Senate seat yet.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM

I ask this question in earnest. Do the Palinista’s so ardently defend her because she might eventually hire them?

I read the Time article about her today. I was expecting it to be far more derisive than it actually was. The article pointed out that Palin hired a blogger from Sweden (I can’t remember his country of origin, but I think it was Sweden) for $4,000 per month because he so fiercely defended her on the blog. Is that what the HA Palinista’s are hoping will happen for themselves?

anXdem on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 PM

BTW, thanks for ignoring my historical examples:
The polls didn’t show Reagan winning in 1980, or Carter in ’76 or Kennedy in ’60 or Truman in 1952 or if they did, it wasn’t until right before the election.

Polls are useless if they’re slanted and usually they are because they’re for the Media and the Media is skewed to the Left and to Democrats.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I don’t recall those polls, but I’ll take your word for it. Yes, the type of poll that we discuss this evening is kinda useless this far out. The polls that aren’t useless are the polls that illustrate what indies think of Palin. These numbers are significant because most everyone knows who Palin is and has a strong opinion. This isn’t true with most other candidates, today or in the past. I don’t think Palin has much “wiggle room” for 2012, but given a few more election cycles, anything can happen.

toliver on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 PM

****FAAAAAACEPAAAAAALM****

Allahpundit:

I appreciate you approving my earlier comment on page one.

Unfortunately, it was too little, too late. The thread had moved on to this page and there is now no turning back.

On behalf of reasoned Palinistas everywhere, I sincerely apologize.

Have a Blessed Festivus,

LQ

lansing quaker on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 PM

I have not ever nor will I ever let a poll tell me how to vote or whom to vote for.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 10:05 P

Yes you have your bigoted mind to do that for you. I remember you stating, “I don’t care for Mormons in public office.”

PrezHussein on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7