PPP: Obama leads Palin by eight … in South Dakota?

posted at 10:00 pm on February 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m highly skeptical — this is a state the GOP’s won in every election since 1964 — but their sample doesn’t seem obviously skewed to me. The partisan breakdown is 48R/38D/14I; the sample in the state’s 2008 exit poll on election day was 42R/36D/22I. If anything, PPP skewed too heavily towards Republicans. The ideological sample is similarly in line. For PPP, it’s 43 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate, and 13 percent liberal. In 2008 on election day, the exit poll had it 35 percent conservative, 50 percent moderate, and 15 percent liberal. Again, PPP’s numbers tilt against Obama. And their polling of hypothetical Romney/Obama and Huckabee/Obama races seems credible. Mitt leads 46/40 and Huck leads 47/41 in a state McCain won by eight points.

If the GOP went with Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin as its nominee Obama’s prospects for picking up the state would improve dramatically. Against Gingrich he holds a slight lead at 44-42 and pitted against Palin that increases to a somewhat remarkable 48-40…

Obama’s slightly unpopular in the state with 42% of voters approving of him and 49% disapproving. He’s ahead of both Gingrich and Palin though because they’re more unpopular than that. Gingrich’s favorability is a 31/43 spread and Palin’s is even worse at 37/55. Voters there are positive toward Huckabee, with 40% rating him favorably to 30% with a negative opinion, and a small plurality like Romney as well- 35% favorable, 34% unfavorable.

In the last two weeks we’ve found Palin up 1 point in Texas, up 1 point in Nebraska, and down 8 points in South Dakota. What those numbers indicate is that she would only really be safe in states that Republicans won by at least 20 points in 2008. And there weren’t very many of those. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a Palin nomination would be Goldwater redux for the GOP.

PPP is Kos’s pollster, but remember that the Kos crowd rightly or wrongly wants to face Palin in 2012. If PPP is cooking its data to do the left’s bidding (which I have no reason to believe), it would theoretically be showing strong numbers for her in order to convince Republicans that she can win and they should therefore nominate her, no?

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, assuming DeMint doesn’t run, Huckabee’s the leader by six points over Romney(!). I’m actually surprised to see both of them in those positions: Huck’s appeal to a southern Christian electorate is obvious, but my sense has always been that SC is ground zero for “true conservatism” and Huck’s credentials on that point are, er, suspect. (Then again, SC elected Lindsey Graham, didn’t it?) And how did Mitt pull off second place? Isn’t he allegedly thinking of skipping the state altogether because it seems like a lost cause with such a crowded social-con field? Maybe Ben Smith is right: By the time 2012 rolls around, the courts may have solved his RomneyCare problems for him.


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 3 4 5 6

Why – in fact – we attempted to “follow independent” leanings in 2008 when we nominated McCain. It was said he was the most “electable” of the entire GOP crow

Honda,
I’m not saying we should follow the most independent candidate. We need to follow a strategy of getting behind the most conservative candidate that can win. If we simply rally behind the most conservative candidate whoever that is we will lose. What happened with the Delaware Senate seat is a perfect example of that. As far as Reagan, the reason he won is because he proved to the public that he was not the person that the media was trying to portray him as. That is not true of Sarah I’m afraid. The media has painted her as having a very thin understanding of policy issues and so far she has not done much to undermine that. She simply repeats cliches and slogans over and over. I love her beliefs and her instincts, but I don’t think she is convincing the majority of the population that she is up to the job of the Presidency. What I fear is that it may be too late for her to change her image due to her overexposure in the media.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

If there are any “indies” out there – they are pretty stupid and haven’t been paying attention to the events of the last two years. Palin supporters are MUCH MORE engaged in the political process.

If you’re going to defer to anyone – at least defer to the Palinistas who have a CLUE about conservative principles. Why defer to indies who can’t distinguish between socialism and capitalism?

HondaV65 on February 2, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Preach it, Honda. You are making some sense, friend.

Kataklysmic on February 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

My concern

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

There it is again.

fossten on February 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM

What I fear is that it may be too late for her to change her image due to her overexposure in the media.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

You know, you’re not very good at this. Concern trolls are usually a little better at not using words like ‘fear’ or ‘concern.’

Back to the drawing board.

fossten on February 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM

I can respect that. We need people who will stand for principle as well as people who can compromise.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 1:07 AM

You are absolutely correct when the compromise on POLICY is not a compromise on PRINCIPLE. When you compromise on principle where is the conviction of principle?

Compromise is a good trait when compromise is for the correct reason, not just for the sake of compromise…like when John McCain does the compromise thingy.

belad on February 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM

The vast majority of Americans not only knew Reagan as a movie actor and from the GE TV show but also that he was the two time Governor of California — a detail which Palin and her supporters seem to keep ignoring. He didn’t quit after a few years to go on a book tour, he was the Governor for the full eight years of one of the largest economies of any State in the United States.

No one can compare the background of Ronald Reagan to Palin and expect most of us to believe the comments.

Cannot believe that people don’t understand that the Tea Party is not the majority of Republicans and this crap they are going to vote 3rd Party if she doesn’t get the nomination shows a lot of them are not your grassroots Republicans who will vote for our nominee.

Fox News has done a bang up job of covering the Tea Party and making sure that they are out front. Might want to ask yourself who these people are in some states (not all) — #1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

#1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Source?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM

#1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

Wow that’s unbelievably dumb.

fossten on February 2, 2011 at 11:55 AM

He didn’t quit after a few years to go on a book tour, he was the Governor for the full eight years of one of the largest economies of any State in the United States….

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Let’s get one small fact that you, and all the other Palin haters, like to conveniently fall to mention or remember. Reagan wasn’t embroiled in a series of frivolous lawsuits that the state does not shield public officials from. Had Reagan been in the same situation, that is spending more time with defending himself in litigation, he would probably recognize that he couldn’t be an effective Governor for the largest state economy either. So, how about getting past this fallacious argument and get to some other topic that you can use to beat on Palin with.

belad on February 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Preach it, Honda. You are making some sense, friend

Elections in this country can only be won based on coalitions. Only 40% of the country call themselves conservative. That is not a majority. Reagan won by gathering support from a coalition of hard core conservatives, moderate independents, and even many Democrats. And he didn’t do it by compromising his conservative principles. He did it by earning the trust and confidence of many Americans, including many who didn’t share all of his conservative convictions. Not all people vote based on ideology. They simply want a President they can trust. The problem with Palin is similar to the problem that existed for O’Donnell and Angle….there is not enough confidence in her ability to lead the country.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Source?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Not holding my breath.

Kataklysmic on February 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

The thing i don’t understand about Palin supporters is this – say she pulls off the miracle of miracles and wins. What then? She governed the state of Alaska as a moderate, possibly could be seen as even a light Democrat. Theres nothing to suggest she’d be any different as chief executive.

Then you have the media, salivating at the nightly material such a thing who create. They would thrash her and spread the remains nightly. She would never get a chance to play a serious president… in the same vein Bush spent most of his term.

We need a serious conservative candidate with no baggage. A straight talker like Christie (obviously not the man himself who won’t run) who is willing to knuckle up against the federal union machine before we descend into the pits of Euro-weinie irrelevance. Someone who would be taken seriously and strike fear into the lazy unions.

tflst5 on February 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I don’t understand the Republican anti-Palin crowd. Many of you seem so sure that the only people who support her are some stupid Palinistas who are blinded by their brain-dead adulation of her. You seem to accept the Left’s meme that she is stupid, doesn’t even write her own FB posts, can’t interview without pulling a Biden, blah, blah.

If that is true, there should be no way that the moderate squishes in the GOP can’t field at least one candidate who will clearly show how pitiful she in in the primaries/debates. I’d think you’d all be looking forward to her humiliation trying to compete against your RINO who is so appealing to the Independents and moderates.

katiejane on February 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Somehow I don’t think that the average person even knows what she did as mayor, gas commissioner, and governor.

Aitch748 on February 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

She hasn’t even started campaigning yet guy, so give it a rest. Before McCain selected her as his running mate, she had the highest approval rating of any governor in all 50 states. Do you think that happened by accident? Methinks rumors of her political death have been greatly exagerrated.
That’s the beauty of our system though. If you don’t like her, don’t vote for her in the primary. As for me, I’m not going to vote for some guy who promises to drive us off the cliff at 35 instead of 95. I am voting for someone who is going to turn the bus around. If you don’t think that person is Palin, we can agree to disagree.

Kataklysmic on February 2, 2011 at 12:04 PM

#1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Get real.

The Tea Partiers are not going to blithely hand Obama another term. Very few Rs will vote third party if they are even given a chance to do so – an unknown at this point.

We have a primary system for a good reason. If Palin has what it takes, we’ll find out. This doom and gloom is counterproductive if you really care about defeating Obama.

I would also say this to the concerned-about-Palin crowd. Start making your case FOR another candidate. You don’t have much time.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Tea Party and making sure that they are out front. Might want to ask yourself who these people are in some states (not all #1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

And can your side win without some of those people you are turning your nose up at? Why should the TP people support YOUR candidate when the creation of the TP was partially due to the GOP ignoring them?

I would also say this to the concerned-about-Palin crowd. Start making your case FOR another candidate. You don’t have much time.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM

That might cut into their bash Pain time and require them to admit they’ve got no one who can appeal to a broader coalition. Anyone who says they wouldn’t vote for x or y or z is undermining the GOP but those who bash Palin are just doing it because they care./s Apparently they are waiting for that “white” knight to sweep in and save the GOP.

katiejane on February 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM

tflst5 on February 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So (according to you) Palin governed as a moderate, even a left-of-center governor, and you propose we find somebody like Christie? Christie isn’t very conservative himself, what with his positions on gun control and the Ground Zero Mosque (Palin is definitely pro-gun and doesn’t think the mosque should be built on Ground Zero), and it’s not as if Palin isn’t a straight talker.

Aitch748 on February 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Anyone who says they wouldn’t vote for x or y or z is undermining the GOP but those who bash Palin are just doing it because they care./s

Exactly. Gets kind of old after awhile, doesn’t it?

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I am voting for someone who is going to turn the bus around. If you don’t think that person is Palin, we can agree to disagree.

Actually I think Palin would turn the bus around. I just don’t believe she will make it into the driver’s seat. I hope I am wrong. If the polls tighten up, I will vote for her. But I’m not going to throw away my vote in a repeat of the Christine O’Donnell debacle just so I can congratulate myself that I remained ideologically pure. In any case, you are missing the point of my post which is my observation that many Palin fans insist on sticking their fingers in their ears when it comes to any criticisms being made about Sarah Palin and her chances of being elected President. She is a great person. It seems she was a great governor. But she has been badly damaged by a media smear campaign and it is being reflected in all these polls. These polls are not conspiracies. Her chances of winning a general election are dismal. She has a very slim chance of turning this around and if she does I will be the first to get behind her.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 12:37 PM

She has a very slim chance of turning this around and if she does I will be the first to get behind her.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I hear where you’re coming from in the rest of your comment, but have you ever considered that maybe you have this in reverse order? Getting behind her now might help her turn it around.

Also, remember that no matter which candidate wins the nomination, he/she will become the object of a smear campaign. It’s not like everyone else gets a free pass – the Palin Treatment is the default strategy of the left and the MSM.

Maybe we should get behind the person who’s already been through the fire and is still standing.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I suspect foreign relations will play a much bigger role than we imagined now that current events are unfolding.

It’s too early for polling.

AnninCA on February 2, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Maybe we should get behind the person who’s already been through the fire and is still standing.

What do you mean by “still standing”? She is no longer in an elected office. Yes, she stays in the media limelight but what does that prove? Sure, she is a strong woman for enduring all the attacks that have been unleashed on her. But from a political standpoint, a person who is “still standing” is someone who has won an election after going through the fire. As far as getting behind Sarah, I will gladly do that if she starts performing better. I’m sorry but repeating slogans and cliches in friendly venues like Hannity and Greta does not increase my confidence that she will be able to withstand the more rigorous venues she must face in a Presidential campaign. She needs to be tested by putting herself back in unfriendly venues like Katie Couric interviews. Yes such people are out to savage her and trap her in her words, but in 24/7 media world, part of being an electable Presidential candidate is having the rhetorical skills to dodge traps and other trick questions that come one’s way. So far she has not demonstrated an ability to do that.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

She needs to be tested by putting herself back in unfriendly venues like Katie Couric interviews.
frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Hoo boy.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Dude … there is absolutely no need for Palin to do any interviews she doesn’t want to do at this point. She hasn’t announced anything. You want her to jump the gun and submit to the very people trying desperately to destroy her.

If she decides to run she’ll do whatever is necessary to ensure she wins. Until then, she’s not required to do anything.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM

She needs to be tested by putting herself back in unfriendly venues like Katie Couric interviews.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

This sounds just a tad too concerned.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM

If there are any “indies” out there – they are pretty stupid and haven’t been paying attention to the events of the last two years. Palin supporters are MUCH MORE engaged in the political process.
If you’re going to defer to anyone – at least defer to the Palinistas who have a CLUE about conservative principles. Why defer to indies who can’t distinguish between socialism and capitalism?
HondaV65 on February 2, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Yes, indies pay less attention to politics than the partisans on either side. That’s part of why they’re indies – if the cared more about one party or the other, they’d just be a member a partisan for that party.

You and other Palinstas seem to just EXPECT them to give you deference. Sorry, that’s not how “the game” is played. And like it or not, you have to work within the parameters of the game. You need to sell your side, your principles to them. And you seem to resent having to do that, or resent indies for not embracing your principles without question,because you “know more” about this than they do.

You need to sell them. Republicans were able to do it last year (on a FISCAL conservatism platform). Palin is going to have to do it if she wants to run and win. She hasn’t yet. And you can say, “it’s early, and she hasn’t even declared yet.”. Which is true, but with indies, she already has a built in deficit, where a sizable percentage of them are already operating under the idea that she’s not qualified or capable to be POTUS. She has to correct that, and you can’t count on Facebook posts or Sean Hannity interviews to do the job.

Vyce on February 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I still haven’t heard who the anti-Palin white knight is who will supposedly save us from Obama. All I’m hearing about from polls is Mitt, Huck, Newt. Not impressed. There’s somebody in hiding waiting to pounce? Very inspiring indeed.

littleguy on February 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You need to sell your side, your principles to them.

Vyce on February 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Why? Indies don’t have principles of their own? They just wander about without principles gravitating to what sounds good?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

What do you mean by “still standing”?

She is a viable candidate for the GOP nomination.

But from a political standpoint, a person who is “still standing” is someone who has won an election after going through the fire.

With the exception of Palin, none of the GOP POTUS contenders have been through the fire, so you have no knowledge about their ability to win an election after having done so, and you won’t be provided with that knowledge until November 2012.

Let us know when you’ve settled on a better candidate who’s worth the risk.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM

They just wander about without principles gravitating to what sounds good?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Pretty much.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Yes, indies pay less attention to politics than the partisans on either side. That’s part of why they’re indies – if the cared more about one party or the other, they’d just be a member a partisan for that party.

Vyce on February 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

If not caring about a party is the measure, then I’m an independent, too. Unlike most independents though, I’m not surprised by what Obama has “become”.

littleguy on February 2, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Dude … there is absolutely no need for Palin to do any interviews she doesn’t want to do at this point. She hasn’t announced anything. You want her to jump the gun and submit to the very people trying desperately to destroy her.

If she decides to run she’ll do whatever is necessary to ensure she wins. Until then, she’s not required to do anything.

darwin

absolutely right. there’s no need for her to have to answer difficult questions or give explanations or anything.

maybe she can just stay hidden in underground bunkers and give taped speeches like that Nasrallah guy in Lebanon.
That way no one can “destroy” her……..

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Without having read thru all the comments, the new IPad magazine Rupert Murdoch and Apple introduced today just may have a big impact on the upcoming election because it is specifically geared to the college age and younger folks who don’t take their news from papers. No one else has this right now so they will be far ahead of everyone else. Maybe the little mushheads will get another perspective other than the liberal crap that gets force fed to them.
And another point, Neil Cavuto, in an interview with him afterward, asked about him hiring Keef Ohlberman(?)now that he’s free and he said “he had fired him once from a late night sports show, and he doesn’t ever fire anyone twice”. Also, said he was acting like a nut. Imagine!

silvernana on February 2, 2011 at 1:46 PM

She needs to be tested by putting herself back in unfriendly venues like Katie Couric interviews.
frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Hoo boy.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

You see, this is the attitude that I’m talking about when I say the Palinistas have their fingers in their ears. Sarah Palin bungled that Couric interview. Yes, Couric had an agenda to destroy her. Yes, the interview was edited to make Palin look as bad as possible. No, Couric would never have done the same thing to a Democrat. Nevertheless, someone who is Presidential material should have been able to handle Couric’s “trap” questions. That interview damaged her badly and we will be subject to replays of it ad nauseum over Youtube in 2012. I’m not saying everything that happened to Palin was fair but we have to deal with the way things are. Perception matters. The public perception of Palin is that her knowledge of policy is an inch deep. That may not be true but it IS the perception among all except her die hard loyal base. If Palin could go back to Katie Couric and blow her away with her knowledge of the important policy issues of the day, she would hit a home run and potentially turn her image around with those who are skeptical of her.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Dude … there is absolutely no need for Palin to do any interviews she doesn’t want to do at this point. She hasn’t announced anything. You want her to jump the gun and submit to the very people trying desperately to destroy her.

If she decides to run she’ll do whatever is necessary to ensure she wins. Until then, she’s not required to do anything.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I’d like to see all the Republican primary candidates swear off the liberal media. It’s time to recognize that the liberal media hates us and will do all they can to destroy Republicans. Why boost their ratings with appearances? That just keeps the stinking carcass alive longer.

slickwillie2001 on February 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Let us know when you’ve settled on a better candidate who’s worth the risk.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I’m hoping someone better does come along. But I’ll take a Mitt or Huck win over a Palin loss any day.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Typical nonsense from you.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM

any Palin fans insist on sticking their fingers in their ears when it comes to any criticisms being made about Sarah Palin and her chances of being elected President.

Yep. Because those criticisms are premature. Get back to me in Jan 2012.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Nevertheless, someone who is Presidential material should have been able to handle Couric’s “trap” questions.

She wasn’t running for President then. You think no one who has ever in their life given a bad interview can be elected president? Please.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I have no idea how people can be an independent though. It seems like indecision to me.

shar61 on February 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Most of the people are easily confused, bought with pretty words & dazzling speeches, & stupid.
That about sums up an ‘Independent’.

Badger40 on February 2, 2011 at 2:10 PM

But I’ll take a Mitt or Huck win over a Palin loss any day.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Indeed; so would I. I’ve just not seen anyone make a convincing case that Mitt or Huck can beat Obama. I actually haven’t even seen anyone try. All the energy seems to be directed toward taking down Palin.

Missy on February 2, 2011 at 2:10 PM

slickwillie2001 on February 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

O/T: Thanks for the info the other day about the TSP for using in the dishwasher. My husband checked at Home Depot to be sure if it was safe, (I told him not to take anything they said as gospel because a clerk would not know) so she called the TSP maker and, of course, they didn’t recommend it. But I’ve done some more reading about it, and seems to be safe. I’m assuming you have used it, so I will be getting some. Another lady or two in there who heard him ask the clerk the question came over as everyone now seems to have the same problem. I’ve read in the local newspaper of people spending big bucks having their dishwashers checked out because we’ve all thought that was the problem. Anyway, sorry to get longwinded, but wanted to thank you for your help.

silvernana on February 2, 2011 at 2:13 PM

We need a serious conservative candidate with no baggage. A straight talker like Christie (obviously not the man himself who won’t run) who is willing to knuckle up against the federal union machine before we descend into the pits of Euro-weinie irrelevance. Someone who would be taken seriously and strike fear into the lazy unions.
tflst5 on February 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Eh, SP has the knuckles to prove who will fight and been the focus of most attacks.

And of all the candidates she is the only one I am confident will swing an axe at the gubmint

she is beholden to no special interes other than the citizens

that’s the beauty of being self-made

Sonosam on February 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

silvernana on February 2, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I bought TSP at Home Depot two days ago. Works great on my dishes, except the plastic ones are permanently foggy..

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Why? Indies don’t have principles of their own? They just wander about without principles gravitating to what sounds good?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Yup – they’re sitting back to see who panders to their fickle attitudes the most. And based on past history the Dems can outpander the GOP evey day. Then when the candidate they CHOSE shows himself to be cr*p they whine and moan about how terrible he is. Makes me want to tell them to STFU – they voted for BO so at this point their wishes don’t matter as much as they think.

While I agree that IF Palin decides to run she will have to face the media, I fail to see why she should give them extra months to rag on her. If she’s so damaged a few more months of doing it her way isn’t going to hurt her as much as being the whipping boy for the media. If she decides not to run it would be masochistic to throw herself to the wolves.

katiejane on February 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM

She wasn’t running for President then. You think no one who has ever in their life given a bad interview can be elected president? Please.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM

That’s why I said she should GO BACK to Couric and do another interview, this time armed with a deep understanding of the important policy issues of the day. The ratings would be in the stratosphere. Palin would have a chance to redeem herself. If she performed well it would demonstrate that her Couric performance in 2008 was just one bad interview. But it seems the Palinistas would prefer she just sit down with a fawning Sean Hannity every few months, as if that is going to convince skeptical voters that Palin has what it takes to be President. Don’t you people understand that there is a swath of skeptical voters that need to be convinced she is NOT the caricature that has been created of her by Tina Fey? That is not going to happen if all she does is preach to the choir on Fox.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Could you please inform us why, if Palin runs, she should go to the last-place anchor who was out to get her last time (tips from Nunn, editing etc.)

Especially considering Couric may not even be in her anchor chair by the time the general election rolls around?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-25/katie-couric-on-her-contract-cbs-and-love-of-the-campaign-trail/

Oh, and try to keep it more focused. Your 12-sentence explosion over my 2-word comment was… telling.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Reagan who was not very popular prior to the 1980 campaign but who then eventually won over the nation to capture the Presidency. But most people knew little to nothing about Reagan prior to his campaign
frank63

Reagan was quite well known from his time as governor. He received large amounts of publicity for the stand he took against the UC-Berkeley protesters.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Screw couric

why give her ratings?

There are bigger fish than that shrimp

Sonosam on February 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM

But it seems the Palinistas would prefer she just sit down with a fawning Sean Hannity every few months, as if that is going to convince skeptical voters that Palin has what it takes to be President. Don’t you people understand that there is a swath of skeptical voters that need to be convinced she is NOT the caricature that has been created of her by Tina Fey? That is not going to happen if all she does is preach to the choir on Fox.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

That’s one big straw man you’ve got there. Of course Palin should leave the Hannity-Greta comfort zone, like she did when she went on Oprah on November 2009, like she did with Barbara Walters in November 2010, like she did with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday Feb 7 2010. The meme that she does not leave a protective media bubble is false. She appears on Fox more often because she has a contract to appear only on Fox except for book promotion stuff. The contract will end when she declares for the presidency, and then she can go everywhere.

Personally I am opposed to another Couric interview because I don’t think Couric matters at all and there’s no reason to reward her. Palin should sit for Tapper for her first candidate interview.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Appreciate your input!

silvernana on February 2, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Could you please inform us why, if Palin runs, she should go to the last-place anchor who was out to get her last time (tips from Nunn, editing etc.)

Especially considering Couric may not even be in her anchor chair by the time the general election rolls around?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-25/katie-couric-on-her-contract-cbs-and-love-of-the-campaign-trail/

Oh, and try to keep it more focused. Your 12-sentence explosion over my 2-word comment was… telling.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Ok, well you just gave me 5 sentences so how many do I get now?? Please….I think I’m staying focused on the issue. If my posts are too long for you don’t read them.

I explained why Palin should to back to the “last place anchor”. Ratings. Based on what happened last time the public would be curious to see what would happen the next time. It’s not about Couric. It’s about Palin getting a wide audience in a challenging venue that could result in new voters for her. Obviously if Couric ends her run as anchor this is all moot. Then Palin could choose another challenging venue to gain some cred.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Palin gets ratings everywhere she goes. Couric is a moron and a terrible interviewer. Palin can do much better. (And will, when the time comes.)

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I explained why Palin should to back to the “last place anchor”. Ratings.
frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Umm…

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/evening-news-ratings

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:41 PM

The meme that she does not leave a protective media bubble is false.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM

The non-Fox interviews with Oprah and Walters were not serious in depth policy interviews. They were more like celebrity interviews. Chris Wallace was fine but she needs to do that more like that and at other networks besides Fox. As far as Couric, all I’m saying is that a good 2nd interview would demolish all the bad press she got and will continue to get over the first one.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM

So being asked “what newspapers do you read?” is a trick question?

If Sarah can’t handle that one I doubt that she could handle the rigors of being President.

I think that Frank63 is spot on – Saracuda ought to jump into the lions’ den and take on interviewers like Couric. If she handles herself well, then I think some of the doubters might be willing to take a second look at her.

Old Fritz on February 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Umm…

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/evening-news-ratings

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:41 PM

I’m talking about the ratings Couric would get for a single Palin interview. It would be Palin drawing the high ratings, not Couric.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM

And I’m saying Couric was not fair last time, probably would do whatever she could to hurt her this time, and may be on the way out anyway.

Why should Palin hand her a high-rated show?

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:47 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Maybe so but, for now Palin is under contract with FOX News. That probably precludes her appearing on rival networks. Palin has, however, crisscrossed the US giving speeches at at various events and functions, posted many FB “comments” that are then picked up by the MSM, written Op-Eds that have appeared in national publications, etc.

Add to the above, the upcoming R debates and the upcoming R Primaries and the electorate have the opportunity to see a MSM filter free Palin…

It’s “in”disputable…

Gohawgs on February 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM

It’s about Palin getting a wide audience in a challenging venue that could result in new voters for her. Obviously if Couric ends her run as anchor this is all moot. Then Palin could choose another challenging venue to gain some cred.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Don’t you think you should wait until Palin announces to give her advice that only matters if she’s running?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM

I’m talking about the ratings Couric would get for a single Palin interview. It would be Palin drawing the high ratings, not Couric.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Personally I don’t think Palin should give Couric the time of day. Couric is nobody. If she runs she should only give interviews to people with at least some semblance of credibility.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 2:51 PM

testing…

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:53 PM

HA doesn’t want me to post links, apparently. She did a good interview in 2010 on CNN and a fluffy one for GMA, both associated with the latest book tour. She goes to the MSM when she has something to say to them. She will have something to say ONLY after she declares her candidacy. She will not and need not go to the MSM unless and until then.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Gohawgs on February 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Sure, if there are contract issues then maybe Palin’s media options are limited. My point is not to harp on the Couric issue. All I’m trying to say is that with her current poll numbers being so poor, Palin needs to do something drastic to shake things up and shift the momentum in her favor. What she’s doing now is not helping. Maybe she will do great in the debates and that will be a turning point.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Indies don’t have principles of their own? They just wander about without principles gravitating to what sounds good?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I think this is the best characterization of Indies yet.
+10

Badger40 on February 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And I’m saying Couric was not fair last time, probably would do whatever she could to hurt her this time, and may be on the way out anyway.

Why should Palin hand her a high-rated show?

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Because it’s not about Couric. It’s about Palin using the interview to help herself. If Couric somehow benefits, so what? It’s all about undoing the damage of the first interview. Why is that so hard to understand? Would Ronald Reagan have run away from a Katie Couric interview because she “might try to hurt him?” A skillful politician knows how to give a “non-answer” answer to trap question.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Maybe she will do great in the debates and that will be a turning point.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Agreed.

Then there are the 60+ newly elected officials that were helped to victory this past November by Palin.

Gohawgs on February 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM

A skillful politician knows how to give a “non-answer” answer to trap question.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM

She did give a non-answer. Everyone decided to interpret her non-answer to mean she didn’t read.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Why? Indies don’t have principles of their own? They just wander about without principles gravitating to what sounds good?
darwin on February 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Not without principles period. Without a majority of YOUR principles. And yes, if you want them to sign onto a candidate who you have chosen, who does possess (ostensibly) a majority of YOUR principles, you’d best either sell them on your principles to ease their misgivings, or your candidate best be a he’ll of a con artist.

Indies are persuadable given the prevailing mood of the moment. In 2008, they wanted “change”. In 2010, they wanted fiscal sanity.

Vyce on February 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

She did give a non-answer. Everyone decided to interpret her non-answer to mean she didn’t read.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 3:11 PM

No, the left wing wackjobs interpreted it that way. Sane people knew she could read, but were concerned that perhaps her reading was limited to Alaska newspapers and that she wasn’t paying close attention to national politics.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I agree with you that it isn’t about Couric… which is why I think Palin can “undo the damage” in other ways, without going back to that particular well.

If she runs, she will have interviews with some media bigs. A good performance there will help, as would good debate performances.

Time will tell.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Oh, and heads up everyone.

Incoming-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48701.html

(allahpundit’s likely post about PPP, Arizona: Obama outpolls Palin in McCain’s Home State!

Eleventy!!!)

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM

#1 answer is Paulbots, #2 answer is the far right who will stay home and not vote if they don’t get their way and #3 is the militia members.

PhiKapMom on February 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM

All wrapped up and tied with a bow of stupidity…can it be possible that you actually believe what you wrote, I ask myself “Can anyone be that stupid”, then I read your post again and I say “Guess so”.

right2bright on February 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Sane people knew she could read, but were concerned that perhaps her reading was limited to Alaska newspapers and that she wasn’t paying close attention to national politics.

frank63 on February 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM

So you didn’t want a non-answer in the first place. You wanted an honest answer to a trap question. That doesn’t jive with your advice earlier that “any skillful pol” would know to give a non-answer to a trap question.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 3:48 PM

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Given the concern shown here at HA by those who think Palin is unelectable it shouldn’t be a suprise to anyone how poorly she polls. The drumbeat of “she will lose, we need a serious policy wonk, blah, blah from the Right would drive anyone’s numbers down. What else is an Independent supposed to think – if the Right thinks she’s bad she must be.

katiejane on February 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Typical nonsense from you.

darwin

sure. I’m the one not making sense. you think that Palin, actively disapproved by most Americans, doesn’t need to answer questions from the mainstream media, if she wants to gear up a campaign for national office.
that’s clearheadeded thinking.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM

you think that Palin, actively disapproved by most Americans, doesn’t need to answer questions from the mainstream media, if she wants to gear up a campaign for national office.

No one is saying that. We are saying she does not need to do so until she had determined whether or not she is running.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 4:12 PM

No one is saying that. We are saying she does not need to do so until she had determined whether or not she is running.

alwaysfiredup

and I’m suggesting that until she proves that she can handle the press’ questions, and overcomes the disasters of the last campaign, running is pretty much pointless.

but I do see your point that she can hold off until she’s sure she wants to try for office.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM

sure. I’m the one not making sense. you think that Palin, actively disapproved by most Americans, doesn’t need to answer questions from the mainstream media, if she wants to gear up a campaign for national office.
that’s clearheadeded thinking.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM

One more time. Unless she announces that she’s running there’s absolutely no need for her to have anything to do with the left’s propaganda arm. Should she decide to run, she’ll do whatever is necessary to win.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Well Reagan also considered running for president in 1968, less than halfway into his first term as governor. And prior to that he had no political experience. To hear him tell it in his autobiography, his decision NOT to run had less to do with any hand-wringing over his lack of experience, or of being branded a “quitter” for possibly leaving the governorship early, but rather that his good friend Goldwater was going to run instead. Had he not, Reagan probably would have tossed his hat in the ring. Would he have won? I don’t know, but the point is, nobody then was all exercised over it so why should we be exercised over Palin’s resignation? It isn’t like she didn’t do it for some very good reasons.

NoLeftTurn on February 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM

why should we be exercised over Palin’s resignation? It isn’t like she didn’t do it for some very good reasons.

NoLeftTurn

millions and millions of reasons.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:02 PM

but not good ones.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM

“by most accounts,” i love that. whose accounts?

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM

By your own corrupt scientists at NOAA, NASA and NCDC. 2010 is tied with 2005. That means that even with the stretching and manipulating they can only get it to tie. Their own corrupt work shows the earth isn’t warming, it’s cooling with a few years with temps a few tenths warmer inbetween.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Oops … wrong thread

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM

NoLeftTurn on February 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM

My understanding is that Goldwater ran in 1964, and Reagan did run in 1968 against Nixon. Reagan’s first campaign for POTUS was therefore as a sitting governor, in his first term.

cs89 on February 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM

but not good ones.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM

So, give me a good reason she shouldn’t have resigned.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Everyone else finds their success inexplicable and mock them mercilessly.

YYZ on February 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Sinatra fans were that way about the Beatles.

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM

So, give me a good reason she shouldn’t have resigned.

darwin

because she asked the voters in Alaska to elect her to a four-year term.

because governors don’t let themselves be driven off.

because people tend not to trust quitters and don’t want to elect them to other offices where the stakes are higher and the opposition a lot stronger and more determined than a couple of dozen people in Alaska.

for starters.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:40 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:40 PM

I said good reasons. With respect to voters electing her to a four year term, the voters expected an uncumbered, efficient governor for four years, not someone harrassed personally and financially by democrats … something she could not give them.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM

darwin, see reasons 2 and 3

if she couldn’t do the job in a state with a half million people, she sure can’t handle the big time and the big pressure that goes with it.

she earned the “quitter” label down in the minor leagues. not many folks are gonna want to hand her the ball in the majors……

until she goes back and proves herself in a smaller park.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:51 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:51 PM

None of your reasons or arguments are convincing. Plus they’re all so old, so worn out … just plain unhip.

Here’s a tip, if you don’t like her, don’t vote for her.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM

None of your reasons or arguments are convincing. Plus they’re all so old, so worn out … just plain unhip.

Here’s a tip, if you don’t like her, don’t vote for her.

darwin

they may sound old to you, but nothing has happened to change them.

hears a heads-up for you. not only am I not gonna vote for her but the majority of Americans aren’t going to vote for either. most of us disapprove of her.

that’s not gonna change until she changes.

when a poll predicts that she would lose to Obama in South Dakota by 8 points that’s pretty clear proof that she’s got to take her act back to the woodshed.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM

because governors don’t let themselves be driven off.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Now tell me another governor who was ever under the same sort of fire that Palin was.

The fact is, if she had stayed on, right now you’d be telling us that being the governor of a sparely-populated deep freeze is hardly a qualification for being president. Come on, be honest.

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM

*sparsely

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:03 PM

hears a heads-up for you. not only am I not gonna vote for her but the majority of Americans aren’t going to vote for either. most of us disapprove of her.

that’s not gonna change until she changes.

You mean when she stops breathing? LOL

when a poll predicts that she would lose to Obama in South Dakota by 8 points that’s pretty clear proof that she’s got to take her act back to the woodshed.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM

What if that same poll had showed her leading by 8? “It’s only SD, after all…”

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:04 PM

* had SHOWN…good grief

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:05 PM

not only am I not gonna vote for her but the majority of Americans aren’t going to vote for either. most of us disapprove of her.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM

OK, so problem solved. Then why all the obsessing over someone who’s going nowhere anyway? Why all the “I hope she doesn’t run” crap?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:09 PM

that’s not gonna change until she changes.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Perhaps I can shed some light on your confusion. She’s not campaigning. She hasn’t declared she’s running. She’s not out to prove anything to you, or anyone else at this moment in time.

If and when she decides to run, she’ll do what’s necessary to win.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 6:09 PM

I agree – why stress over someone you wouldn’t vote for regardless. That’s how I feel about Mitt & Huck – I’ll leave the line blank before I vote for either of them so I don’t pay much attention to them anymore.

katiejane on February 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6