Q-Poll: Is Sarah Palin unelectable?

posted at 7:52 pm on May 5, 2011 by Karl

If you took the latest Quinnipiac University poll at face value, you might think so:

However, there is ample reason to not take this poll at face value.

As political scientist John Sides has noted (with little effect on the establishment media, much to his chagrin) about 90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party’s candidate. Thus, presidential elections tend to turn on the difference in turnout between Republicans and Democrats and the distribution of the so-called Independent vote. On the latter factor, it is important to note that pollsters often treat Independents synonymously with swing voters, when only 7-10% of Independents are truly indepenedent. The rest are weak partisans who overwhelmingly vote their partisan sympathies. Incidentally, the folks at Quinnipiac know this and have been known to separate leaners out from true Indies — but it does not appear that they did so in this poll.

Accordingly, when turning back to the Q-Poll, it’s a good bet that some or most of the 24% of Republicans who told Quinnipiac they would never vote for Palin are fooling themselves. Conversely, 50% of Democrats may say they would consider voting for Mitt Romney, but the real answer is probably closer to the 91% who say they would never vote for Palin.

Palin also scores badly with so-called Indies in the Q-Poll: 58% say they would never vote for her. However, we don’t know how many of the true independents are in that group, as opposed to Democrat leaners. Indeed, with Democratic Party ID hitting a 22-year low at the same time as a high for Independent ID, it is a fair bet that the number of Democrat leaners has been on the rise.

Nevertheless, the Q-Poll does hold some basic lessons about a prospective Palin candidacy. Because partisan turnout is a key factor to winning, Sarah’s supporters often claim that she energizes the GOP base in a way that her potential rivals do not. The Q-Poll (and most polls about hypothetical 2012 fields) suggest Palinistas are overstating their case. The number of voters — both in general and among Republicans — who say they are enthusiastic about voting for Palin are not significantly higher than those for Romney or Mike Huckabee. Moreover, some GOPers who say they would never vote for Palin may be fooling themselves, but that 24% suggests a lack of enthusiasm for Palin as a standard-bearer (dismiss such folks as RINOs, but they also affect turnout).

Similarly, while Palin’s problems with Indies may be overstated, her showing with them remains at least a caution flag. Based on the Q-Poll, we simply don’t know to what extent Palin has turned off true Independents, which is crucial in her case because she (unlike all of her potential rivals) is near-universally known. If she has lost that 7-10% of the electorate, it would take a much bigger shift in the overall political environment to win them over, relative to other possible GOP nominees. Furthermore, her poor score with so-called Independents — even if we acknowledge that many are Democrat leaners — may also speak to enthusiasm and turnout. Palin certainly excites a segment of the GOP base, but she may also boost Democratic enthusiasm.

Reading the Q-Poll against the fairly strong trends in presidential elections discussed here, I would hypothesize that Palin’s actual profile probably resembles that of another candidate tested in the poll: Newt Gingrich. He is well-known. Roughly 12% of Republicans say they will not vote for him. He scores poorly with Independents and worse with Democrats. If this hypothesis is correct, we would expect the percentage of voters who would never vote for Palin to be somewhere in the high-30s to low-40s (Republicans would be more enthused about Palin than Gingrich). Is such a candidate electable? You betcha — but if you imagine trying to elect Newt, you can imagine that it might not be easy.

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 4 5 6

Countering the Palinista argument. It’s called back and forth. Discussion. Point counter-point. Ya know, the purpose of a blog? If it bothers you so much, go read palin’s PAC site.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Hahahahahaha!!!!! Discussion, Point counter point?

what a freaking joke.

Your argument to everything is QUITTER!!!11!!!!

Same crap, different day.

This has been answered in any number of ways, and yet you dig into your jerkiness even deeper and refuse to talk about anything but QUITTER!!!1!!!!

No matter what you think, events will proceed.

I’m done with this nonsense, enjoy yourself.

Brian1972 on May 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

The latest answer to the quitter question is…..why am I worried about it. Yet another attempt to silence opposition.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM

That wasn’t an answer, that was a question, and a question is hardly trying to silence anyone. Why are you worried seeing that Palin has no chance even to win a primary if she runs?

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

What she is doing. Namely not running for another elected office.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

No, what should she have done instead of resigning.

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

If McCain had come out against TARP and bailouts, I think he might’ve won.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM

McCain’s support of TARP and bailouts supposedly endeared him to the indies. Not so much in retrospect, no?

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Rather than intelligent analysis, you rely lazily on the same thing to say over and over and over and over and over and over… and over again.

Brian1972 on May 6, 2011 at 4:13 PM

hahaha. You act like a 20 year career in small time local politics will make up for quitting in the middle of the biggest job she ever had. All it means is that she wasn’t tough enough to stand the pressure of that office. The indies will ask how she can expect to handle the presidency.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

If McCain had come out against TARP and bailouts, I think he might’ve won.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM

But I hasten to add, then he wouldn’t have been McCain.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Exactly. If he had painted Obama as the dangerous radical he is instead of assuring us he was a gentleman, scholar and patriot, he may have won also. But if he had, to borrow your phrase: he wouldn’t have been McCain.

Kataklysmic on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Why are you worried seeing that Palin has no chance even to win a primary if she runs?

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

He’s worried that America at-large would choose Obama over Palin. If that happens, then so be it. I would at least consider that an honest defeat. Running a progressive Republican against a marxoid-progressive incumbent makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM

The indies will ask how she can expect to handle the presidency.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

But unless indies vote in the GOP primaries, they won’t have a chance to pass judgement one way or the other, since she is doomed to fall flat on her face anyway. Right?

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM

The indies will ask how she can expect to handle the presidency.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

And she will point out the protections that weren’t available to her in her governorship, that are and always have been available to sitting presidents. SHAZAM!

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM

All it means is that she wasn’t tough enough to stand the pressure of that office.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

You know that’s not true. Why do you insist on lying?

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM

No, what should she have done instead of resigning.

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting. Only she can make that decision. But it does raise the question of whether she would do it again in a job that is a hundred times tougher, even if for other reasons that make sense to her.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

The indies will ask how she can expect to handle the presidency.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

This is the same question that has been answered here many, many times.

She will have to address that. She will. People will listen.

More will listen than you seem willing to accept.

The Tea Party is loaded with indies.

They like her just fine, and they will listen.

Now you can call me a quitter behind my back, because I’m out of here.

Brian1972 on May 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

ROFL….you’re a waste of time and electrons. Over and out.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

But it does raise the question of whether she would do it again in a job that is a hundred times tougher, even if for other reasons that make sense to her.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Alaskan governors could, until the ethics reform signed by Parnell, be ousted with scurrilous ethics complaints. The only way to remove a president from office is impeachment by The House. Anyone worried about the prospect of her being forced out in the same manner as was previously is indeed ignorant of those circumstances. But ignorance can be educated; you can’t cure stupid.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM

ROFL….you’re a waste of time and electrons. Over and out.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Ditto.

Brian1972 on May 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I think “csdeven” should quit being stupid.

Amjean on May 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

That does it. I’m going to officially change my party affiliation to Independant so I get to have some say in who gets elected. /

Kataklysmic on May 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I won’t judge her on her reasons for quitting. Only she can make that decision. ..csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Actually your whole point is judging her reasons and you attribute your opinion of her action to all Indies. You also out yourself as wanting a weak candidate since you apparently think she should have quietly crawled away and hiden. Makes me wonder which GOP potential you do like since so many of them have such major flaws.

katiejane on May 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting. Only she can make that decision. But it does raise the question of whether she would do it again in a job that is a hundred times tougher, even if for other reasons that make sense to her.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I would think that someone who thinks they know what “indies” think would understand Palin’s reasoning. To some, like you … she quit. To others, like me … it was a brilliant move.

She was a target. As the target, harm was being done to her, her administration and Alaska. She simply removed the target. The democrats were stunned and wandered aimlessly around Alaska for weeks trying to figure out what happened.

Her Lt governor was easily able to take the reins … and get elected.

If you think the democrats thought that was a stupid move then perhaps you’re not as perceptive as you might think. She thinks out of the box … and that scares them to no end.

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:28 PM

ROFL….you’re a waste of time and electrons. Over and out.

pseudoforce on May 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Wait until United Physicists for Electron Justice hear about this.

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I think “csdeven” should quit being stupid.

Amjean on May 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

You can’t fix stupid. “Here’s your sign, pal!”

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:06 PM

What is worse?….Having a sitting Senator campaigning and voting “present” thru out 75% of his tenure OR…..Having a sitting Governor step down for chiverlous reasons.

Now keep in mind that Obama voted present most of his tenure and did not accomplish anything, well except….

“the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending. On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Tom Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.”
So much for that.

Now Palin was governor for 2.5 years. The accomplishments are numerous….try learning them….

http://hrh40.wordpress.com/palin-resume/governor-palins-accomplishments/

Tell me again what the difference is?

tencole on May 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting. Only she can make that decision. But it does raise the question of whether she would do it again in a job that is a hundred times tougher, even if for other reasons that make sense to her.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Why not?
You’re judging her for quitting. You are slamming her for doing so.
Aren’t the reasons for doing so important?
Or do you just want to slam her without ever considering there was a valid reason to do so?

Badger40 on May 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM

You act like a 20 year career in small time local politics will make up for quitting in the middle of the biggest job she ever had. All it means is that she wasn’t tough enough to stand the pressure of that office.
csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting.
csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

You do realize this makes you look like a huge moron, don’t you?

Badger40 on May 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM

This shady csdeven character just wants to control the thread and push the quitter meme. Ignore it.

ReneePA on May 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM

None of this has meaning, because most of it is based on media narrative.

The vast majority of the people who are even considering voting in primaries are not even paying attention right now.

That’s what Palin knows, which is why she is staying out through early July, at least. It’s not my cup of tea, but it’s what the polling dictates.

Everyone got in early in the 2008 cycle, and they wasted gobs of money doing so. Palin doesn’t need to, even with independents, because of her name rec. Independents who are hating on her now are doing so because of what they hear in the MSM, not because they have heard any sustained arguments from Palin and they hate her as a result.

Palin has been under a sustained propaganda hate campaign from the Left and the Democratic Party, as well as their propaganda organs in the MSM and she still maintains extraordinary popularity in the GOP, which is what counts for her right now. She is quite capable of reaching out to independents as I believe she has already started to do with her “Nixon Doctrine” speech of a couple of days back.

The notion that Palin is permanently damaged is a lie, spread by an MSM that is trying to keep her from running. It is profoundly mendacious bullsh*t, spread by people who know better, and are deeply agenda-driven.

Their problem is that it is Palin who knows better.

victor82 on May 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Yup. You got it victor82!

ReneePA on May 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM

The funny thing about Plain is that she is just an unqualified celebrity that reads a speech well, so her screeching fans think that makes her a President.

Where have we seen this story before?

Sarah Palin isn’t electable in Alaska, anyway.

Moesart on May 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Alaskan governors could, until the ethics reform signed by Parnell, be ousted with scurrilous ethics complaints. The only way to remove a president from office is impeachment by The House. Anyone worried about the prospect of her being forced out in the same manner as was previously is indeed ignorant of those circumstances. But ignorance can be educated; you can’t cure stupid.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM

yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. Try explaining that during a debate or in a 30 second ad.

“I am not a witch!”

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 7:38 PM

You do realize this makes you look like a huge moron, don’t you?

Badger40 on May 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM

You do realize that trying to push that straw man exposes your ignorance, right?

Palin abdicated her governorship. That is how the media will play it and all the excuses for why she did quit, will be too convoluted for anyone to want to listen to. Period.

Now, give us the same tired excuses you guys have been using since she announced she would abdicate.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM

She was a target.

darwin on May 6, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Waaaaaaa!!

More excuses please……

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM

The problem with you delusional rabid Palinista’s is that you refuse to READ what is written. I have not given you my opinion on her abdication of her governorship. I have explained to you which voting blocks she needs to sway. I have also explained to you how the medias will portray her. We know that indies are what they are because they are not progressives or full on conservatives. So you whining little babies who claim to be the independents, but are really for Palin, are in fact NOT in the independent voting block. The indies are your typical moronic neighbor who is swayed by fancy words and clever slogans and put off by easily defined attacks and convoluted explanations.

You are either purposely being obtuse, or you are so enamored by her, you refuse to consider a different opinion.

The bottom line is this……In the general election against Obama, Sarah will have the reps and lose the progressives. That leaves the indies she has to sway. These people do not respond to Sarah the way the Palinista’s do. They will recoil at her abdication as it will be defined by the media they listen to….namely the MSM. Your “explanations” are not clean and concise. Each explanation requires another explanation to justify the first explanation. You have tried it here with me today. “Sarah quit for the good of her family and state” That comment leads a NORMAL rational person to question her fortitude. Your response is then “The laws of the state blah, blah, blah….”. “Her family would go bankrupt, what would you do?” The normal person says…”Stay out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat”. Your response is “what would you do blah, blah, blah….”.

Look, just because you people have the patience of Job when it comes to the long drawn out explanations for Sarah’s political career, wont mean the indies will. They wont because it isn’t clean and easily communicated in a 15 second ad.

Tough cookies folks.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

ROFLMAO…still at it? man you palinhaters are one trick pony aren’t you. I hope when she wins the nomination you don’t jump over the bridge instead of working under it.

unseen on May 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM

IMHO, Sarah Palin didn’t “quit” — she went Galt. The game was rigged, so she changed the game. (I’m really surprised that in this crowd of geeks no one’s brought up the Kobayashi Maru scenario — unless someone did and I missed it!)

Whether she runs or not, I admire her.

Mary in LA on May 6, 2011 at 8:21 PM

You do realize that trying to push that straw man exposes your ignorance, right?

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM

You said you’re not going to judge her reasons for quitting, after you judged her reasons for quitting in the same post. I don’t think quoting your words back to you constitutes a “straw man” in the strictest sense of of a distractive argument.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Look, just because you people have the patience of Job when it comes to the long drawn out explanations for Sarah’s political career, wont mean the indies will. They wont because it isn’t clean and easily communicated in a 15 second ad.

Tough cookies folks.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

What part of “I don’t care what indies think” is a long drawn-out explanation? My vote counts just as much as any individual’s does. I may be a one-trick pony, but at least I’m not on a high horse.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 8:36 PM

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

How did I judge her reasons? Quote it and we’ll discuss it.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 10:01 PM

How did I judge her reasons? Quote it and we’ll discuss it.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Someone already did quote it, and you called it a “straw man.”

You act like a 20 year career in small time local politics will make up for quitting in the middle of the biggest job she ever had. All it means is that she wasn’t tough enough to stand the pressure of that office.
csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I wont judge her on her reasons for quitting.
csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Whatever, dude.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 10:05 PM

I can’t wait until we are further into the election season and Sarah has announced she is in. Then after that debate last night in SC, future debates will really be interesting.

Mirimichi on May 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Moesart on May 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Whatever guy. If you didn’t perceive Palin to be one of those socons you hate so much, you have built a shirne to her in your living room already.

Kataklysmic on May 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM

IMHO, Sarah Palin didn’t “quit” — she went Galt. The game was rigged, so she changed the game. (I’m really surprised that in this crowd of geeks no one’s brought up the Kobayashi Maru scenario — unless someone did and I missed it!)

Whether she runs or not, I admire her.

Mary in LA on May 6, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Yes, went Galt, went Rogue, you have the idea. As a non-Trekker, I had to look up your Kobayashi Maru reference. Interesting take.

Kataklysmic on May 6, 2011 at 11:01 PM

A note on Palin and her leaving office. Let’s face it, the Democrats were going to file ethics complaint after ethics complaint until her term was up. So, she stays for those 2 years, spends tons of money beating back the ethics complaints and then what happens? Alaskans, fed up with all the ethics complaints against Republicans, elect a Democrat governor. It worked with the Republicans (anyone remember the “culture of corruption” mantra the Democrats brought out in late Spring of 2006) and it would have worked in Alaska also.

What Sarah did, and it was brilliant, was removed herself from the picture, installed her Lt. Governor, who was now going to have 2 years experience and then run for Governor on his own. It worked, he is not the Governor and not some Democrat so their strategy failed.

The Democrats, and the press, have nothing on Sarah Palin except what they’ve made up. There has never been a substantiated complaint against Sarah Palin on which you could possibly base all the negative attacks on her, none. There has never been anything that should have given the LSM and the Left any right to attack her or her family, the way they have. The beauty is the EVERYONE knows this. All this has really done is plant a seed, but just a seed, in the minds of independents and weak willed Republicans, that she’s not what she appears. All she has to do is get into some debates, not even these early debates but any future debate down the road, prove herself knowledgeable on the issues and move on from there. In fact, when you look at it, the LSM has kept her name out there more than she has, these past 3 years so, when she wins the nomination, she should thank them.

bflat879 on May 6, 2011 at 11:33 PM

The Democrats, and the press, have nothing on Sarah Palin except what they’ve made up. There has never been a substantiated complaint against Sarah Palin on which you could possibly base all the negative attacks on her, none.

bflat879 on May 6, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Correction: “She quit.” That’s basically the crux of the Palin bashers’ arguments. While I can’t deny that it happened, I’d opine that it’s a stupid thing to disqualify an otherwise stellar candidate over.

And CS, I’m still waiting to hear why you claimed to not judge Palin’s motivations for leaving office when you explicitly did so earlier in the thread.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 11:36 PM

I well remember the Reagan years, and Reagan was treated with nothing less than contempt by the media before, during, and after his presidency. They finally started calling him the “Teflon” president, because they were so frustrated that people were ignoring their attacks on him. But that didn’t happen until well into his 2nd term. I clearly remember hearing news anchors lament that they kept reporting all these negative things about Reagan, but people were ignoring them.

Some have called Palin polarizing. I won’t print their names out of compassion, because that has to be one of the stupidest arguments ever. Anyone who’s been paying attention to politics and hasn’t learned yet that the media hates conservatives isn’t bright enough to vote.

Bush 43 was a moderate who got along great with Democrats in Texas, reached across the aisle all the time, worked with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, and came to Washington determined to “change the tone.” He spent 8 years being called “polarizing.” Well, that was the nicest thing they said about him. They hunted for every scandal they could lay on him, and came up dry. They smeared him for lying about Iraq, when he never even exaggerated. They smeared him for botching the response to Katrina, when FEMA handled Katrina better than any disaster before or since. (Louisiana and New Orleans, on the other hand, screwed up their response badly.) To this day, it’s an article of faith among the left that Bush “lied us into a war” and “botched Katrina.”

It’s not possible to have a good Republican candidate that isn’t called “polarizing” by the leftist media. They hated Bush 43. They hated McCain, except when he was criticizing Bush 43. They hated Bush 41. They hated Reagan. They hated Nixon, even when he gave them wage and price controls and detente.

I’m glad they call Palin “polarizing.” Any candidate that isn’t called polarizing should be disqualified.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 7, 2011 at 1:04 AM

She abdicated her governorship.

csdeven on May 6, 2011 at 7:39 AM

And you abdicated the use of logic and prove, once again, that sense isn’t common…

Gohawgs on May 7, 2011 at 1:40 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 7, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Great comment.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Just keep buying these state-run media polls that are designed to shape rather than reflect public opinion and let the state-run media, Democrats and Beltway RINOs pick Bob Dole 2.0 or John McCain 2.0.

When the state-run media or Beltway pundits deems GOP candidates as “electable,” it’s a pretty good sign that they really view them as the easiest candidate for the Democrats to beat.

They are terrified of having a real conservative to provide voters with a choice in 2012 against a Marxist incumbent. That’s why they have to demonize the conservative candidates as “unelectable” and “polarizing.” They want Americans to unite … behind Our Lord and Savior.

pdigaudio on May 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Clarification: yes, this is a Quinnipac Poll, but the Q-poll is part of the Beltway establishment. The Commie News Network, the Washington Compost and al-NYT/See BS News have been doing the same thing with their polling as well: trying to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.

pdigaudio on May 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM

A note on Palin and her leaving office. Let’s face it, the Democrats were going to file ethics complaint after ethics complaint until her term was up. So, she stays for those 2 years, spends tons of money beating back the ethics complaints and then what happens? Alaskans, fed up with all the ethics complaints against Republicans, elect a Democrat governor. It worked with the Republicans (anyone remember the “culture of corruption” mantra the Democrats brought out in late Spring of 2006) and it would have worked in Alaska also.

By the way, that smear campaign was being conducted out of the Obama Regime’s OFA campaign arm and funded by George Soros. They’d have never quit until she was broke, the state was broke and the voters were tired of anything with an R behind its name.

The Chicago Way in action. You can take the Street Thug out of Chicago, but He’s still a Street Thug.

pdigaudio on May 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM

By the way, that smear campaign was being conducted out of the Obama Regime’s OFA campaign arm and funded by George Soros.

pdigaudio on May 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Yes. Not many know this. Some Palin detractors know it, but would rather lie to themselves and pretend it was some spontaneous grassroots uprising that magically sprouted up one day against the (formerly) most popular governor in America.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Whatever, dude.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2011 at 10:05 PM

You are delusional! I have made it perfectly clear that the context of my comments are how the MSM and the indies will view her.

So stick it in your ear you moronic douche.

csdeven on May 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Gohawgs on May 7, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Hahahahahaha!!!! Go back a few pages and you’ll see my comment on how you delusional Palinista’s remove comments of of context to my childish points that do nothing to further your argument in favor of Palin.

csdeven on May 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

my childish points

csdeven on May 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Agreed.

Also, I must have missed your explanation about why the MSM is fine with Obama losing in 2012 by allowing “Indies” to fall in love with one of the Republican candidates, just not Palin.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2011 at 12:11 PM

You are delusional! I have made it perfectly clear that the context of my comments are how the MSM and the indies will view her.

So stick it in your ear you moronic douche.

csdeven on May 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Oh, so claiming that she wasn’t “tough enough” to see out her governorship wasn’t a judgement on your part, huh? Talk about delusional. I suppose you probably think John Galt wasn’t “tough enough” to work within the system when he quit, either. You’re making judgements left and right that you just won’t admit to. I judge Sarah Palin to be fit for the presidency, but at least I’m not hiding behind a four-foot-thick wall of pretense.

gryphon202 on May 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

csdeven on May 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Are you a politician? ‘Cuz you sure don’t like having your own words repeated back to you…

Gohawgs on May 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Are you a politician? ‘Cuz you sure don’t like having your own words repeated back to you…

Gohawgs on May 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Probably a closet liberal. He pats himself on the back for being “non-judgmental” even as he calls me “moronic.”

gryphon202 on May 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Best to ignore him and treat him as a troll. He chooses sides on pet issues and plays the right-against-right bit to the hilt. And yes, he’s quicker to call names than even most of our most insidious lefty trolls.

Freelancer on May 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I don’t believe any polling data. You can get any answer you want based on the questions and the poling sample. I suspect that Palin would beat Obama without trouble. Of course after 2 1/2 years of Obama I suspect that Daffy Duck also could.

duff65 on May 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM

duff65 on May 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Agreed, these questions were really tricky…

Would you ever vote for Palin…

No, never, ever….ever..

Well, perhaps I didn’t ask that question the right way…
Would you consider voting for Palin

No, never, ever….ever

Ok, let me try again…If Palin were the GOP nominee would you voter for her…

Nope, no, never,ever…ever…

em…
nevermind..

NextGen on May 7, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Poll Insider: Palin Electability Series
Part One:

This article is the first in a series examining Sarah Palin’s electability, and why the Republican, Liberal, and Media Elites are using bias over analysis.

As we consider the electability of candidates, namely Sarah Palin, we first must consider the candidates floors. A “floor” is a candidate’s guaranteed minimum percentage based on current polling data, accounting for all factors. Obama’s floor, or guaranteed vote, according to analysis of current polling is 43%. What this means is that 43% of people will vote for Barack Obama no matter who his opponent is. It could be much higher, but probably not any lower. This number is arrived at by reviewing 6 months of polling date from all polling firms. This is Obama’s floor because, depending on his opponent, his support grows or shrinks, but rarely below 43%.

Sarah Palin’s current floor is determined to be 39% as she typically registers 39% or 40% in head-to-head match-ups against Obama (not counting 3-way race polling). So today, the floor stands at Obama 43% and Palin 39%, or Obama +4. Yes, I know what the skeptics/elites would say to this: “But Obama always scores much higher than 43% against Palin, duh!” That is true, but the point of determining a floor is to understand a candidate’s solid support. Elites prefer to go light on analysis and heavy on drama. If a poll shows Obama scoring 53% against one candidate and 42% against another, his support is quite volatile, and can be changed as information is acquired.

What does this all mean? For one, it is good news for Sarah Palin. Figure that almost all media coverage of Palin for the previous 2 years has been incredibly negative, accusatory, insulting, misleading, and “downright mean”, to quote Michelle Obama. It’s amazing to read something Palin writes or says and see how it is maliciously twisted into a salacious sound bite. Unfortunately most people at this stage know the sound bite, but not what she actually says. Meanwhile, despite being generally inept, but receiving glorious and glowing coverage from the media, Obama’s floor is at a mere 43%. This means that all the positive coverage on the world for Obama and all the negative coverage in the world for Palin results only in a 4 point spread.

When we toss in candidate favorable/unfavorable opinion we find a very interesting fact. Let’s not pretend that Palin’s current favorables are high. In reality, they shouldn’t be. We have to remember that 80% of the population’s opinion of Palin is currently formed by the media’s representation of her. Or, misrepresentation if you prefer, and I do. But Sarah Palin heavily outperforms her favorability rating, in many cases by 2-1 margins. Meanwhile Obama underperforms his favorable rating, usually by 10-15 percentage points. So far more people will vote for Sarah Palin even with a negative opinion of her while far fewer people with a positive opinion of Obama will vote for him. This only works in Palin’s favor as she is able to make the case for herself and opinions of her arise. If a large percentage of people will vote for her when they do not like her, what happens when the percentage of people who do like her increases dramatically, as will inevitably be the case.
So, how does Palin raise her floor? The good news is: things couldn’t get worse for Palin. The majority of current opinion about Palin is formed not on thoughtful consideration of her, but on minimally whimsical knowledge bandied about by frivolous “media” and entertainment personalities. Most voters, sadly, know more about Charlie Sheen and American Idol than they do about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. Their opinion of her is that she is a ditzy beauty queen who is obviously controversial and not electable, and very, very right wing. After all, we just got our news from Saturday Night Live, Politico, or The Daily Show, so it must be true.

But what happens when 100 Million people tune into a debate between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin? What happens when she speaks freely and convincingly in that debate, as she did in a great interview with the Long Island Association? And then what happens when people realize that she isn’t the moron “they” have attempted to portray her as? That she can speak without uhhh’s and ummm’s like someone else cannot? And when Palin releases, yes I will say it, Reaganesque commercials that are inspiring and uplifting, you know about America being that shining city on a something or another? How quickly will opinion change when people realize that Sarah Palin is not what the media have portrayed her as?

And about those “controversial” opinions she holds? What happens when Americans realize that it is those “controversial” opinions that the majority of Americans agree with, often by wide margins. Well, that is a matter for Part 2 of Elite’s Way Off on Palin Electability.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Part Two:

At the end of Part 1 of this series I asked the question: What happens when Americans, perhaps watching a debate, a speech, or a town hall meeting, begin to realize that Palin is the candidate that they agree with? Yet we had been told, countless times, that Palin is controversial and holds extreme positions (though Obama is never described as such), and here we sit, agreeing with these “crazy” ideas. How will this effect her electability? There are 5 major issues that will win or lose the 2012 Election for someone, if they can handle those issues correctly.

And for the first time ever, Barack Obama will be running in an election where he actually has a political record and has actions to be judged on. Pretty startling fact for a guy running for his second term in the White House. There can be no more myths about where he stands on economic, social, foreign, and domestic issues. No more imaginary “take a scalpel to the budget” or tax cut talk. Not even the media could spin that very well today. There are a handful of major issues that the Republican nominee can use to beat Obama over the head with in 2012. Sarah Palin is the only major candidate who can debate all of these issues without serious conflicts of the past. This makes her both credible and electable.

So fine, Obama and Palin are debating. 100 million people are watching. They are all expecting Palin to be a moron and then are shocked when she isn’t. And then the issues come up. And here we are, wondering who the extremist is. And they debate The Big 5.

Healthcare: Obama, obviously, supports his healthcare plan. Republicans, even he of Romneycare, unequivocally vow to dismantle and replace the program. It has never been popular, even one year after. Even with the most leading questioning pollsters can only come up with a tie. A March 13, 2011 CNN Poll found opposition to Obamacare at a stunning 59%, with support at just 37%. Rasmussen Regular polling finds double-digit support in opposition. A March 19 Gallup poll found that 70% of respondents thought the expensive overhaul would either do nothing for them or make their care worse. A Bloomberg poll found 65-32% of respondents opposed the main clause of the bill, the individual mandate. A February CBS Poll found 51%-34% oppose the bill. This is what we call consensus. And who holds the extremist view? Not Palin. Who agrees with the public? Not Obama.

Spending/Deficit: I think the election of 2010 speaks for itself. As voters rushed to throw out as many Democrats as they could from local and state positions and replace them with “right-wing extremists” the Obama White house was still pretty sure that this whole “hissyfit” was because he was half-black. Yes, because if throwing out a bunch of old white liberals and replacing them with young, and quite diverse I might add, conservatives isn’t a sign of racial hatred towards Obama, I don’t know what is. Obama’s spending is indefensible. It is easy pickings for a Governor who cut spending even while running surpluses. A little-know fact among the public that will be sure to warm their hearts. A March 21 CBS poll showed 68% of respondents thought the deficit was a serious problem, while another 26% said it was somewhat serious. That’s a whopping 94% who think it’s serious. And no, Obama does not fall into that 94%. For someone who has never run anything, he is really good at running a deficit. Obama’s main theme in 2008 was Bush’s deficits. I think that card may run out (but he will try).

Jobs/Taxes: Obama promised if we spent $1 Trillion, unemployment would never go beyond 8%. Not only did it immediately soar past 8% into the 10% range, it hasn’t even flirted with 8% in almost 2 years. As Palin pointed out in a March 24th Facebook posting, the real unemployment is almost double that (unless you believe giving up looking is a sign of a recovering economy). Despite Obama declarations that “The stimulus has worked as planned” the plan was “never go above 8%.” And Republicans always win on taxes. Except, of course, in 2008 where Obama positions himself as the tax-cutter with constant promises of tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Obama simply out-taxed McCain.

Immigration: Jan Brewer won the hearts (and votes) of Arizonans by being one of the first border-state politicians to take this issue seriously. Again, who would be controversial here? Despite laughable claims by the Obama administration on their “border toughness” the public is squarely in the opposite camp. A Jan. 17 USA Today/Gallup poll found opposition to amnesty at 55-43%. An NBC poll was a near identical 55%-43%. A Quinnipiac Poll found 60% Disapproval (28% approval) of Obama’s handling of Immigration with 68% stating he should focus more on enforcing laws to prevent illegal immigration that worrying about legalizing them. A CBS Poll found 88% of respondents feeling illegal immigration is either a very or somewhat serious problem. Who is extreme here?

Energy: The Green movement is becoming less important as gas prices are skyrocketing along with everything that relies on gas to get made. The Green Movement is losing ground as impractical and costing jobs and money. And who has better experience here than a certain governor from a certain state? In 2008, Obama voters were running through the streets announcing they weren’t gonna have to worry about silly things like gas prices and mortgage payments, because Obama was going to deliver.
So there they are: The Big Five. Five issues that can win or lose a Presidential Election, and Palin is on the right side of all of them. She can be on the offensive on every one, as Obama is left defensively responding or flat-out lying (but, alas, he has a record now!). She can go after spending, healthcare, jobs, energy, and immigration. Where she can succeed, the other will stumble. Romney’s big skeleton is Healthcare. Sure, he can say it was different because it was a state issue. But, alas, the principles of his state law were liberal. Gingrich loses on immigration and energy. Huckabee loses on immigration and spending.

In 2008, McCain dropped the ball on half of these issues. Obama out-conservatived (in rhetoric anyway) John McCain on spending, taxes, jobs, and energy. Immigration was a tie for equal ineptitude. McCain had the edge nowhere. Palin is electable because she is most in tune with public opinion on all of the issues. Supposed “electable” candidates like McCain, Dole, and Bush 41 (after a courtesy term) are DOA as they believe what they have been told: Americans like moderates. They don’t, really. Conservatives sat 2008 out because they did not have a candidate at the top of the ticket to vote for. America is a conservative country, and it takes a conservative to win. Not only is Sarah Palin the only major candidate that is completely tuned-in to public opinion on the big 5 issues, but she is also the only candidates who can put together all of the necessary components to win against the $1 billion candidate. But that is a matter for “Elites Way Off on Palin Electability: Part 3 – Components of Victory.”

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Part 3A:

In part 1 I explored the foundation of a Palin path to victory and explained the fluidity of polling. In part 2 we explained the 5 big issues of 2012 and why Palin was best suited to handle them. The 3rd reason the elites are wrong about Sarah Palin is because she is the only one who can meet every necessary requirement, every component of victory. This is broken down into several parts due to length. Part A follows.

Here’s the hard one, and the first of the four components of victory: Be Conservative. Simple enough, right? If anything is certain in the primary race, all of the candidates will say all of the right things, and usually the same exact things. But in order to win, candidates can’t just say they are a conservative and ask you to trust them. They have to be believable. Hilariously watch Donald Trump as he attempts to explain his 3-week-ago conversion on life issues. Conveniently he is now staunchly against government healthcare (after claiming earlier that his chief disagreement with the GOP is on Universal Healthcare, which he supported), and he has had sudden changes on pretty much every other issue. Romney was a pro-abortion universal healthcare enactivist. His sudden conversion to being pro-lifer (just in time to run for president!) was good enough to win the endorsement of Meghan McCain, an anti-social-issues “republican.”

Romney’s biggest problem is that he argues that his healthcare plan was okay because it was done at the state-level and not the national level. His attempt at making a federalist argument is fine, but it does not change the fact that the plan was based on liberal principles, which is the problem. And to defend the bill today is to defend the liberal principles of that bill. And how could he trash a national version of his plan that is based on a similar foundation? Obama would thrive at backing Romney into a wall on this one.

Mike Huckabee might be the second-most conservative candidate of the viable ones, but his record on immigration (one of the big 5) is spotty. Gingrich is perhaps the most shady and shallow candidate of them all. Ed Kilgore had a fascinating piece about Gingrich at The New Republic website. If you haven’t read it yet, it is well worth it. And this isn’t to bash all of the non-Palin candidates, it is to place a realistic expectation on the weak points that voters agree with the conservative position. And if they are shaky on the big 5 issues, Obama will tear them apart, and they will be on the defensive. (Not to mention the grassroots support and money that would be fragile). And this isn’t to bash all of the candidates. I like most of them, but don’t think they are the most electable, nor are they conservative enough, despite media declarations on both accounts.

One thing is for certain: all of the candidates will have changed at least one of their positions from the past, and it is impossible to argue that that is never okay. I’ve either changed or have become more conservative on several issues. Most conservatives welcome conversions from holding liberal ideals to holding conservative ones. Some of the most popular conservative activists, authors, politicians, and radio hosts were once ardent liberals. But the problems occur when you appear to change your position out of convenience or for the sake of electability rather than because you actually believe in what you are saying. McCain realized the people were against him on amnesty, so after leading the crusade for amnesty he was suddenly a border hawk. Conservatives viewed him as a phony and he suffered both monetarily and at the ballot box.

It would be hard to argue that Palin is not conservative enough based on her decades-long record in Alaska. Other candidates are sufficiently conservative (Bachmann, Cain, etc.) but might lack the other 3 necessary components of victory. And to win it all, you need them all. Many try to argue that Palin is “too conservative.” Certainly, Palin is no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And in a nation where self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by 2-1, the only error would be, as history has shown, not being conservative enough.

Winning Republicans have always been conservative and losing ones have been “moderate” or “electable.” Reagan and George W. Bush both ran on unapologetically conservative platforms (though Bush would fall off the wagon completely in his second term, I remember while working on his campaign in 2004 the conservative and how excited everyone was). The only other Republican winner, Bush 41 received one courtesy term on the coattails of Reagan, and then was soundly booted from office for raising taxes.

Bob Dole was your typical beltway, establishment, moderate Republican. And he lost. John McCain, he of moderation, compromise, and electability, was never able to lock in the conservative vote. He managed to get 3 million fewer votes than the supposedly bumbling idiot, Bush43, who ran as a conservative. McCain was simply out-conservatived by Obama. Sure, Obama preached hardcore liberalism when in front of his liberal crowds, but what was Obama’s number 1 campaign talking point on TV and debates? How about: “For 95% of you, your taxes will not go up, or they will be lowered.” It was a lie, but that’s all he said. Over, and over, and over again. McCain had no response.

On most of the issues broadcast widely, Obama and McCain were too similar. They both pledged to cut the deficit and reduce spending. They were both in favor of amnesty. They both supported bailouts of the bank and auto industry. They both opposed same-sex marriage. They both believed in global warming. They both opposed the Bush tax cuts for the “rich.” McCain would later change his tune on amnesty and tax cuts, but it was too late, and conservatives didn’t believe him. Barack Obama positioned himself as a moderate Democrat and McCain positioned himself as a moderate Republican. Given the choice between an uneventful establishment republican and a fresh and “exciting” new face, the people chose the latter. McCain gave the voters no reason not to. As a result, he lost by 10 million votes.

If the Republican candidate can start out by winning every conservative vote and the Democrat starts out by winning every liberal vote, the Republican starts the election with a 42-21 edge. You would only need a small fraction of “moderates” to pull out a win. How can being too conservative be a negative? Especially when a strong majority of people agree with you? 2010 saw the most conservative sweep ever in congressional, gubernatorial, senatorial, and state house elections. And that is somehow not the model to follow?

Being conservative is just one element needed to score a general election victory in 2012. But, the other three are also necessary, and I believe only one candidate can bring in all 4 elements. Indeed, the first element is a main factor in being able to bring in the other 3 elements. Part B of the Components of Victory: The $750 Million Woman.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Part 3B:

(Note: This is the final part of the series. the rest can be found here)

First, who can be The $750 Million Candidate? Any chance to beat Obama rests heavily on the ability to raise money. John McCain was out-raised and outspent an incredible 2-1 by Barack Obama in 2008. While Obama was running $1 million dollar, prime-time campaign ads on network television just days before the election, McCain was boxed into a corner, penniless, watching from the sidelines.

And the ability to raise funds is heavily dependent on the ability to get the conservative base on your side. McCain did not have that and saw his first real infusion of conservative cash only after he selected Palin as his VP nominee. If the Republican candidate is not conservative, conservatives will not give, and at least certainly not in the numbers they would to a conservative candidate. Just as liberals are the most politically active segment of the Democratic Party, so too are conservatives in the GOP. Moderates and “independents” are typically less involved, are last minute deciders, and often apathetic until voting time. Attempting to ride this as your political base is a mistake often made by “smart” establishment elites. They simply do not give money. And again, the Republican candidate will need a lot of it.

Sarah Palin is clearly the best fundraiser. For two years she has been the hottest ticket at multiple fundraisers across the country on any given subject. I think there is little question that her supporters would be quick to give. Mike Huckabee proved woefully poor at raising cash in 2008, and much of his support comes from a much more politically inactive conservative base. Mitt Romney raised over $100 million in his primary loss in 2008, which is good, but would have a major problem getting donor cash from the Tea Party base. Again, the GOP candidate needs to have the ability to raise $750 Million. And even then they will still be at a disadvantage. And unless someone like a Donald Trump is willing to self-finance, who else could compete?

Second, who can Pack a Stadium? The establishment Republicans say we need a boring thud (like Mitch Daniels/Tim Pawlenty!) to counter Obama’s base enthusiasm. Wait, they want a candidate that no one can get excited about? Being able to bring a crowd to see you is paramount. With Obama in 2008, it became an event to see him. Friends brought friends and their friends brought more friends. If you can’t get someone excited about seeing you, how can you get them excited about voting for you?

Sarah Palin has proven, time and again, that she is the biggest draw in the GOP field. In 2008, it became so embarrassing for McCain that he had to begin holding rallies at the same location as Palin because he was barely filling classrooms and she was having venues changed to accommodate bigger crowds. Enthusiasm goes a long way, and is there any other candidate that could pack the house in a way that Palin could?
Arguably, Palin is the Godmother of GOP crowds and, in my opinion, the Tea Party. Until Sarah Palin, the GOP did not gather. They did not show up in large numbers. They did not fill venues. They did not protest. Sarah Palin in 2008 almost single-handedly proved that conservatives could, like their Democrat counterparts, show up in large numbers in support of a candidate (or in opposition to one). For the first time, the silent majority was loud. (And 2009 and 2010 continued that trend first in opposition to Obamacare, then in support of tea Party candidates). Who else can do that?

Finally, who is Most Compelling? The GOP nominee has to be compelling in every way. In debate, are they straightforward and honest? In speeches, are they able to get a point across without putting me to sleep? In campaign commercials, are they able to provide an inspiring vision for America? These are questions that will all be answered in the coming months.

All three of these qualities/abilities are heavily dependent on the conservatism of the candidate. Remember, conservatives are the ones who either donate or do not. They are the ones who attend rallies. (When was the last great moderate rally?) The American people are overwhelmingly conservative, and the GOP base is reliant on the conservative vote. But you need more than conservatism to win. And only one candidate has it all.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Sarah Palin will demonstrate her electability when and if she runs. Enough hand-wringing.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

NextGen on May 7, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Funny but 7% of those that said 2 weeks ago they would never ever never vote for Gov Palin changed their mind in this poll. Gallup had it at 65% now Q-poll shows 58%. Seems that the never ever people don’t really understand the concept of never ever.

I could channel the Princess Bride here but we all know the line.

unseen on May 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Sarah Palin will demonstrate her electability when and if she runs. Enough hand-wringing.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Thing is she won’t run, that way she leaves all her “fans” with the …”if she had run” argument.

Palin is not going to run then string you all along again in the run up to 2016. She’s taking the long view…..of her media career.

NextGen on May 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Palin is not going to run then string you all along again in the run up to 2016. She’s taking the long view…..of her media career.

NextGen on May 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM

No skin off your nose either way.

pseudoforce on May 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

NextGen on May 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM

SNL thinks she is going to run. they brought back Tina Fey last night.

unseen on May 8, 2011 at 2:50 PM

who the “F” is karl?

long_cat on May 8, 2011 at 7:36 PM

It’s not possible to have a good Republican candidate that isn’t called “polarizing” by the leftist media. They hated Bush 43. They hated McCain, except when he was criticizing Bush 43. They hated Bush 41. They hated Reagan. They hated Nixon, even when he gave them wage and price controls and detente.

I’m glad they call Palin “polarizing.” Any candidate that isn’t called polarizing should be disqualified.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 7, 2011 at 1:04 AM

I’m sure this thread is dead, but I have to give you kudos for this.
Very good post.

Badger40 on May 9, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6