Quotes of the day

posted at 10:37 pm on January 19, 2011 by Allahpundit

“Even James Carville’s polling firm cannot get Obama to get 50% against Governor Palin. She trails him by a reasonable ten points considering that it’s Carville’s firm (go ask re-elected Governor Corzine about how left-leaning Carville’s polling group is) and that this poll was taken at the same time that Governor Palin was being blood libeled. It’s quite amazing that Obama can only beat someone the Democrat Party effectively claims is an accessory to murder by ten points.

“This poll also shows that Governor Palin has room to grow among her base. Only 83% of Republicans have decided who they are going to vote for her in a hypothetical Palin-Obama matchup while 98% of Democrats have decided. So she can close the margin pretty easily just by winning over undecided Republicans while Obama does not have any more room to grow among his Democrat Party base.”

***
“A new national poll indicates that 56 percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah Palin, an all-time high for the former Alaska governor. That 56 percent unfavorable figure is up seven points from just before the midterm elections, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning.

“Thirty-eight percent of people questioned in the poll say they have a favorable view of the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, down two points from October…

“According to the survey, Palin’s unfavorable rating is up 10 points among women, compared to just three points among men, and among independent voters, her unfavorable rating has grown a whopping 14 points.”

***
“Professional jealousy and intellectual snobbery, however, only scratch the surface of the left’s bizarre attitude toward Palin. They explain the intensity of the disdain, but not the outright hatred–not why some people whose grasp of reality is sufficient to function in society made the insane inference that she was to blame for a madman’s attempt to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

“This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women

“We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic)…

“Liberal women are the active, driving force behind hatred of Sarah Palin, while liberal men’s behavior is passive and manipulative. In this respect, feminism has succeeded in reversing the traditional sexual stereotypes. If this is the result, you have to wonder why anyone would have bothered.”

***
“The time has come to put any thoughts of Sarah Palin running for President to rest. I say that not because I dislike her; on the contrary, I’m a fan. I think she did an excellent job as a vice-presidential candidate in 2008 and has been an effective spokeswoman for conservative causes in the years since. But there is no way she is ever going to be elected President, and the sooner Republicans get over that idea, the better…

“No one with a 59 percent unfavorability rating among independents has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being elected President. 2012 will be a vitally important election year; it is no time for a kamikaze Presidential campaign or for a cult of personality. Republicans (and conservatives) need a candidate who has a chance to win against an incumbent who, despite everything, is not particularly unpopular and who won’t be able to do much visible damage between now and then.”

***
Via Mediaite.


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 5 6 7

She runs, and she wins.
People are overlooking that there are two political dimensions: the pre-game show and the game. These are not dimensions connected in any meaningful way.
rrpjr on January 20, 2011 at 9:57 AM

I like this

they are trying to abort her early

if she makes it to through the birth canal to the debates and primaries they will have to treat her differently and all the past attacks may come back to haunt them since they will be up to more scrutiny

SP was an unpredicted outcome

they had no idea how popular she would be before slotting her at VP and tried to wreck her as soon as they realised, which was pretty quickly

immovable object meets irresistable force

my moneys on SP

Sonosam on January 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM

People like Chrisite are instead trying to use it to tear down one of their own which only ends up helping the left not them. the fact that Newt and chrisite are too stupid to understand this makes them unfit for higher office.

unseen on January 20, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Palin’s comments aren’t part of a coordinated GOP effort that Newt or Chris signed-off on. Palin is a self-described rogue political commentator. It’s not reasonable to believe that every GOP politician should have unqualified praise for Palin’s every Tweet.

In Christie’s case his comments were both benign and obvious.

dedalus on January 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Since when would anybody not want a vigorous primary? That’s just an incredibly stupid post, calling for someone to drop out…because they’re 10% behind the incumbant President…2 years before the election!

MNHawk on January 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

I like Ace’s word here…wishcasting

unseen on January 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Point number one: if Palin runs in the primaries I believe she wins, gets lots of national exposure debating the best the GOP has to go against her and begins to be seen by the public as not dumb and actually knowledgeable on policy issues with lots of common sense. Her ratings go up.

Even if she doesn’t win the primary, she drives the other candidates to the right. She will make them be more conservative and will advance the conservative narrative. So it’s a win-win situation. Then she would be the top cheerleader for whoever wins and her ratings again would only go up.

For a number of reasons, 2012 looks to be a big win for the GOP. Redistricting, a continued bad economy, gas prices, food prices, going up, etc. We will undoubtedly take over the Senate and possibly make further gains in the House. At that point whoever wins the Presidential will have to deal with a solidly conservative Congress. If it’s Sarah we win big time. But even if we/she lose and the 0 wins he won’t be able to do much. And a GOP conservative Senate won’t let him put in another Supreme who is a lib.

So if she runs it’s all good. Go Sarah!

shmendrick on January 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Palin’s comments aren’t part of a coordinated GOP effort that Newt or Chris signed-off on. Palin is a self-described rogue political commentator. It’s not reasonable to believe that every GOP politician should have unqualified praise for Palin’s every Tweet.

In Christie’s case his comments were both benign and obvious.

dedalus on January 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Again you are missing the point. you want to make this about Palin it is not. The left/media engaged in a blood libel against conservatives, the tea party and used GOv Palin as the figurehead to do that. Newt and Gov chrisite attempted to take themselves out of the direct fire by saying in effect. I am not connected to them or in other words they joined the enemy during the attack. Call it what you want. Gov Palin is not seen a a rogue politcal person by Americans. she is seen as a conservative as a Tea party leader and as a republican. the media by attacking her is attacking all those groups.

those like Newt and gov chrisite think that by defending Gov Palin against these media storm they will rise her up instead by them attack her they have lowed themselves. If they would have defended conservatives and the tea party at this time and by defending their figureheads then they would have risen themselves.

Instead by showing their selfishness they have shown themselves unfit to command support from those they wish to lead.

unseen on January 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

And when I think of it, it galls me that the boys in the establishment think they can take SP’s and the TP’s blood, sweat and tears, all that made the November victory possible, and walk away with it, having had NOTHING to do with it.

I assume that SP means Sarah Palin and TP means the Tea Party.

If so, they need to choose their battles wisely. There is no doubt that the Tea Party’s grass-roots opposition to massive spending and tax increases and overwhelming government control was a huge factor in the Republican victories IN THE HOUSE.

But in the Senate, Tea Party-supported “outsider” candidates with no political experience lost winnable races in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, and Alaska. Yes, Rand Paul won in KY, which is a very conservative state, and Marco Rubio won in FL, but he had previously been Speaker of the State House, and knew how to speak and campaign. Besides, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party aren’t always on the same page–Palin endorsed Kelly Ayotte in NH (who won by 20 points), while the Tea Party endorsed primary loser Ovide Lamontagne.

There’s a major difference between House and Senate races. A candidate only needs about 150,000 votes to win a House race, so a political novice who knows his district has the time to “connect” with that many voters during a campaign. The electorate was particularly angry with Pelosi in 2010, so that anyone opposing her was a good alternative. Besides, voters in a House district might be willing to take a chance on an unknown, knowing that he/she could be replaced in two years.

Senate races are about entire states, where many more votes are needed to win, and it takes more time to meet enough voters to overturn an entrenched and well-known opponent. Voters are less likely to trust an unknown candidate for 6 years in one of 100 Senate seats than for 2 years in one of 435 House seats, so that a Senate challenger needs to avoid campaign gaffes that can turn off voters.

In order to pick up a Senate seat from a Democrat incumbent, it’s wiser to run a candidate who already holds a lower office (U.S. Rep or statewide executive) who already has run a winning campaign, and who has a positive record he/she can tout during a campaign, which ensure a “base” of voters already committed to the challenger. This doesn’t necessarily mean settling for an “establishment” candidate (are Jim DeMint and Marco Rubio, both of whom had prior political experience, the establishment?), but a candidate who knows how to win over independent voters–a candidate can’t change Washington DC unless he/she can WIN.

The 2012 elections are still a long way off, but Sarah Palin and the Tea Party now have real-world experience in trying to influence elections–63 House seats and 6 Senate seats won, but some others that “slipped away”. Now is the time to honestly evaluate the results–what worked, what didn’t, what type of candidates and positions on issues won, which lost, and WHERE, then apply the lessons of 2010 (both positive and negative) to plan the strategy for 2012.

What voters want can vary from state to state, and what works in Kentucky doesn’t work in Delaware. It’s ultimately the voters (or over half of them) that decide who governs, and we need to find candidates who can please over half the voters in any state or district. Sometimes that means an “establishment” Republican, who can be easier to work with than an “establishment” Democrat.

Steve Z on January 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I love Sarah Palin, but I have to agree that, for now, she is damaged goods. She has been so pilloried in the MSM that many don’t know the real person, only the ghastly avatar that’s been created for her. She scares the hell out of liberals, especially women, because she is the antithesis of their version of the perfect female – homely, unmarried, childless, ruthless, and Ivy League educated (and if they’re gay, so much the better). Let SarahPAC raise money and Sarah stump for other candidates until all of this vitriolic hatred of her blows over. Once conservatives are firmly planted in the White House, then it will be her time to shine.

College Prof on January 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Instead by showing their selfishness they have shown themselves unfit to command support from those they wish to lead.

unseen on January 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Most politicians are pretty selfish, especially when competing against each other. I don’t expect Mitt to stand up for Huck or vice versa.

Some of the GOP candidates will want to distance themselves from Palin. You have every right to hold that against them.

dedalus on January 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM

then it will be her time to shine.

College Prof on January 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Her time to shine is now. Use that college prof mind of yours to consider the moral imperative. Such “vitriolic hatred” isn’t something that “blows over” –it is a condition, a self-reinforcing state of ideological being whose consequences pre-date and reach far beyond Sarah Palin. In the larger sense, we are all Sarah Palin, and our fight cannot be any other time but now. There is no future when such conditions are accommodated or considered as ordinary events that come and go, or “blow over.”

This is not to say one must vote for or support Palin once the total picture of her positions and qualifications are considered. That is an individual decision. But it is to say that evil will not honor your patience and faith in time. Palin is presenting us with a test, in my mind. That is, she is the test, and we are seeing through her the forces which await us all once they are finished with her.

rrpjr on January 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7