Nate Silver has published an analysis of how far Pres. Obama’s Gallup approval ratings could drop before he could expect to tie Govs. Palin and Romney in head-to-head elections:
There have been 11 Palin versus Obama polls that have come out this year — 8 by Public Policy Polling and one each from Rasmussen, Clarus, and Marist. Those polls showed Obama approval ranging from 49 percent to 55 percent — not far from Dowd’s sweet spot — but Obama defeating Palin by margins ranging from 6 points to 23.
If we make a scatterplot of these polls, we can extrapolate backward to get an estimate of where Obama’s approval rating would need to be in order to bring Palin into a tie with him; the answer is about 43 percent.
If we do the same thing with Mitt Romney’s numbers, on the other hand, we get a breakeven point of 46 percent:
So, one way to look at this is that Palin gives Obama an approval rating bonus of about 3 points: if Obama can defeat a Generic Republican with an approval rating of X, he can defeat Palin with an approval rating of X-3.
Disappointingly, Silver did not include Huckabee, who has also appeared in many head-to-head polls against Obama, in his analysis (other possibilities, like Pawlenty, Daniels and Thune lack the name recognition to perform as strongly in head-to-head polls). Still, Silver provides us with an intriguing barometer of Obama’s relative strength in a general election.
Unfortunately, a lot can happen between February 2012 and November 2012, the time gap between the likely emergence of a frontrunner for the Republican nomination and the general election, rendering the selection of the “most optimal candidate” to defeat Obama (relative to his polls numbers) nearly impossible.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
God these are GREAT posts today.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think Mitt probably needs a bigger gap between him and Palin to make the point about electability. If it’s only a three-point gap, I suspect Republicans will go with who they like more between the two (though Huckabee adds something different to the equation).
November 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
http://davidwissing.com/?p=10523#comment-625942
Monthly SurveyUSA numbers
Obama approval/disapproval
Alabama 38/59
California 53/38
Kansas 38/58
Kentucky 38/58
Missouri 38/58
New York 53/39
Oregon 47/47
Virginia 37/60
Washington 48/48
November 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What is wrong with California
and New York, Tommy Boy??
November 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I agree with Bosman (1.)
The past couple of weeks at this site have been wonderful.
Let’s take back the White House, people.
Go Sarah! Go Mike!
Go Mitt! You too, Tim!
November 25th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hard to take Silver seriously on things where he is not making a specific prediction where his rep is on the line. After all, this is the guy who just wrote a few weeks ago that Obama is going to be reelected if he has anything over a 43% approval rating.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Governor Palin’s numbers are skyrocketing while Obama’s numbers are plummeting (lowest of any sitting president). Soon she will surpass him by a mile and look to be inevitable for the nomination.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
This model assumes the favorables of Romney and Palin remain static, which of course, they won’t.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Nate Silver, a big Palin supporter
(nothing wrong with that) knew better than to include Huckabee’s chart. Clever.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I don’t know. I think Palin would fall into pieces after a year of media and Obama onslaught, plus tons of bad interviews, poor debate performances and a lackluster campaign.
I seriously think Obama could beat Palin with 35% approval.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“Hard to take Silver seriously on things where he is not making a specific prediction where his rep is on the line”
You serious? The guy has cred. Others may put up poll results, he analyses much deeper and better than others could. Plus his comments around the 43% approval deserve slightly more context than that. He looks at the approval ratings of previous incumbents who were/weren’t elected and points out the paucity of evidence for Dowd’s assertion that 47 percent was the minimum that Obama needed. And based on the data, you’d back Silver over Dowd.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/how-bad-can-obama-screw-up-and-still.html
November 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Kavon,
I think his generic break even point, for incumbent Presidents, was 46% and his analysis struck me as pretty persuasive. Incumbent Presidents just don’t lose very often. Incumbents in general don’t lose very often but incumbent Presidents are particularly hard to knock off. I have no trouble believing that an incumbent President has to be 4 or 5 ticks below 50% to actually lose to generic opposition. That sounds exactly right to me.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Presidents re-elected to second term since 1904(includes VPs): Roosevelt (‘04); Wilson (‘16); Coolidge (‘24); Roosevelt (‘36, ‘40, ‘44), Truman (‘48), Eisenhower (‘56), Johnson (‘64), Nixon (‘72), Reagan (‘84), Clinton (‘96), Bush II (‘04) = 11 elections, 9 candidates
Presidents defeated for re-election (including VPs): Taft (‘12); Hoover (‘28), Ford (‘76), Carter (‘80), Bush I (
92) = 5 elections/ candidates
Difficult? Sure. Extremely difficult? Not really. Impossible? No way.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
#10
“I think Palin would fall into pieces after a year of media and Obama onslaught, plus tons of bad interviews, poor debate performances and a lackluster campaign.
I seriously think Obama could beat Palin with 35% approval.”
Of course you do. That is because you want that. Romney has had no scrutiny at all, nothing like what he is going to get in a Primary campaign or in the General Election. The polls always show the moderate doing better than the conservative, especially far out from the election. Ford and Bush always polled better than Reagan and always performed much worse. As witness the last election, Mitt always underperforms the polls. That was true in 2008 against inferior candidates like Huck and McCain in spite of Mitt’s huge financial advantage, which he will not enjoy against Palin, who is a much better candidate than those two. Palin overperforms her polls, as witness her 32 point drubbing of Murkowki in the 2006 GOP primary and her 8 point defeat of former Dem Governor Tony Knowles (in a race the pollsters dubbed “too close to call”.
Stay tuned. As 2012 approaches, the polls will become more accurate and reflect the true extent of her lead, which the size of her crowds, book sales and facebook friends demonstrates empirically to anyone willing to face facts.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Sean P,
Right, but that’s a function of their approval rating. Incumbent Presidents with low approval ratings pretty much always lose- duh. And because they are incumbents, Presidents have a lower floor than challengers. There’s, in normal circumstances, only so much you can blame on someone who’s not actually doing anything. But, I think the data points pretty clearly to the idea that if incumbents are above 50% they’re well-nigh unbeatable, while even a strong challenger- someone with 55+ favorables- will have a difficult time beating a modestly unpopular incumbent (say, where Obama is right now).
November 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
*For Romney, the numbers are 49% favorable and 38% unfavorable (14% Very Favorable, 10% Very Unfavorable).
*Huckabee is better like with 58% offering a positive assessment and 30% negative, including 21% Very Favorable and 13% Very Unfavorable.
*Opinions are strongest about Palin. Overall, her numbers come in at 46% favorable and 49% unfavorable. Those numbers include 27% with a Very Favorable opinion and 31% with a Very Unfavorable view.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
#13
“Incumbents in general don’t lose very often”
Since 1964, which I would call modern times, of the eight times when incumbent Presidents have been running (1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2004) incumbents have been beaten three times, in 1976, 1980 and 1992. That is a pretty high percentage. It bears mention that two of the defeats, in 1976 and 1992, were inflicted on “moderate” Republican presidents (Ford and Bush) who we were told repeatedly during the primaries in which they sought the nomination, were more electable than the conservative against whom they competed. That conservative, Ronald Reagan, inflicted the only other defeat of an incumbent President in the last 45 years. (Indeed, it was the only defeat of an incumbent Democrat President in the entire 20th Century.) The other attempts to defeat Democrat Incumbents in 1916, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1964 and 1996 were all undertaken (with the exception of 1964) by moderate GOP nominees. While other factors undoubtedly played a role (in addition to the fact that Goldwater’s defeat was driven perhaps principally by the desire of the American people not to have 3 different President in a single year) it is undeniable that moderate GOP nominees (like Romney) are sacrificial lambs for incumbent Democrat Presidents. There is simply no historical evidence that they can win.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
. uhm…
November 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
There is no historical evidence that a woman can be elected President in the United States. Furthermore, a governor of Alaska has never defeated an incumbent President. See, I can use stats, too.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Never underestimate Obama’s charisma and charm. The majority of people right now want to give him the benefit of the doubt — for two reasons: (i) they like him and (ii) if he is doing well, then they are doing well economically. In other words, they want him to succeed. That is the power of a likeable incumbent.
If the election were held today — and Obama was in full campaign mode, with the power of the presidency behind him — he would beat every single GOP candidate out there — hands down (including my guy).
So everyone should just step back a while — focus their attention on 2010 — and understand that Obama right now has time on his side. All his lower approval ratings will do is perhaps — and even this isn’t a guarantee — detract from individual 2010 races. And even there, we have no idea where the economy will be next year. Frankly, I think we will be doing a little better — job losses will still be far from desirable — and by the end of 2010 going into 2011 I think we will start to drop and sputter. The last sentence is total speculation on my part. Everything else is rationality.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
14. I loved your post except for that “inferior…Huck” part.
Unless you just meant – lack of money, name and Fox/RushFans support.
Of course, Palin is the darling of Fox and Rushmo NOW.
No doubt Sarah, as Mike says each and every day, is our Party’s Rock Star!”
I wish her only the best.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
#19
“There is no historical evidence that a woman can be elected President in the United States. Furthermore, a governor of Alaska has never defeated an incumbent President. See, I can use stats, too.”
You can use stats too? Those are not stats, though. It is a historical analysis based upon a DEMONSTRATED failure of a certain subgroup (Moderate Republicans a/k/a RINOs, e.g.- Mitt Romney) to defeat incumbent Democrat Presidents. It was tried SIX times (and has therefore been demonstrated over and over again) in one hundred years and it failed every single time. The only poerson who succeeded in defeating a Democrat incumbent was a conservative Republican (You remember the guy. He is the one Mitt disavowed in his 1994 debate with Teddy Kennedy).
No woman has been the Presidential nominee of a major party. No governor of Alaska has been the nominee of a major party. Therefore there is no historical evidence that it cannot happen. Sarah Palin, in addition to being a woman and former Alaska governor, is (unlike Mitt) a Reagan conservative. And my analysis establishes that a conservative can defeat an incumbent Democrat President, because it has happened.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Exactly my point. But if you insist on using historical evidence to predict an election 3 years out in an unstable economic and wartime environment than I’d prefer to use favorability as a predictor. The conservative/moderate issue is a deceptive stat, as the term conservative/moderate shifts throughout time. Also, since most voters don’t self-identify as conservative/moderate/liberal, so I fail to see how it impacts their vote. Do you have alternative theories or are you thoroughly convinced by your evidence?
November 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
This is all silly. Mitt will never be the nominee. The grass roots can’t stand the guy and will not allow another plastic banana RINO to win. We tried that last time and it didn’t turn out so well. Huckabee is a joke. If Palin runs, she wins. If she doesn’t, it’s wide open.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Tom Jensen from PPP did what Nate Silver failed to do — he included Huckabee. As quoted below:
“I looked at our last four 2012 polls and calculated the percentage of the vote Obama got among people who don’t approve of him against Palin, Romney, and Mike Huckabee. Over the course of those surveys Obama averaged 9.5% against Palin with voters who fit that description while earning just 5% against both Huckabee and Romney.
“Using Nate’s example of a 45% approval rating, and assuming that everyone who approves of him would vote for him, that would give Obama 50.2% of the popular vote against Palin but just 47.8% against Huckabee or Romney. In other words nominating Palin vs. nominating one of the other Republicans would be the difference between GOP victory and GOP defeat. Obviously things could change a lot between now and 2012 with the perceptions of all these politicians but for now it does look like Palin would hurt Republican hopes of taking back the White House.”
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/possible-palin-mistake.html
November 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
4, the CA result is actually a steep drop from last month. It used to be 60 last month. SurveyUSA calls it the lowest reading since inauguration. 53 is low no matter where, so it’s very low for California where he got 62% of the vote.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
PPP is a democratic pollster and they have been touting Huckabee for several months. It is in their vested interest to make it appear that Huckabee stands a better chance against Obama, since the word had gone out about a year ago from the Obama war room not to attack Huckabee.
How do I know if this strategy has been carried out? When Obama attacked Fox news he conveniently omitted to attack Huck who hosts a program of the weekend and is touted by PPP as the frontrunner. Any politician would have at least taken a jab at Huck unless it was part of an overall strategy not to do so.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
27. Paranoid just a bit?
Just kidding! Relax.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
bob, here’s another commenter over on the PPP site…
“comments:
Timothy said…
Interesting that PPP and Democracy Corps (James Carville’s outfit) are pushing Romney all of sudden. Interesting indeed.
November 25, 2009 11:12 AM
November 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Boo!
November 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Rah rah Reagan and all that, but since 1964 the only Democrat incumbent to be defeated had an approval rating in the 30’s. That doesn’t impune Reagan but it simply doesn’t tell us that much. Bush or Dole could have bested Carter with numbers like that.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
28 HuckRubber, looks like you couldn’t stay away despite the fact that Lorelli is still here.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
DB9, perhaps you should go to the gambling sites if you’re that sure. You can get 5 bucks back for ever buck you bet right now on Palin.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Well, Bob, here is another “slanted” view by Tom Jenson of PPP on the Romney Conundrum. As quoted:
“Yesterday I wrote about how Mitt Romney’s overall favorability numbers with Republicans were crashing.
“Let’s look at a more specific swath of the GOP electorate though- those voters who think that the party’s too conservative. It’s not a huge group but it’s the one most likely to cross over and vote for Obama in 2012 and thus Republicans really need to hold onto them if they want to win the next Presidential election.
“Sarah Palin is not the answer with those folks. 43% of them have a positive opinion of her but 37% view her negatively for a +6 net favorability rating.
“Mike Huckabee comes out better with 44% viewing him favorably and 16% having an unfavorable take, for a +28 net ratio.
“And the most popular with this group? None other than Mitt Romney at a 51/16 favorability spread for a net +35.
“So the guy the Republican rank and file likes the least is the one that the weakest group of Republican voters like the most. Those are the sorts of internal disparities the GOP is going to have to work out if it wants to win the next time around.”
And I say, very interesting.
Mitt has the best favorabilities with this small group, but is declining with conservatives; and Sarah does the least with this group but is favorable with conservatives.
I think that leaves Huckabee in a pretty good position — at least for now. He is down seven points from Romney with this group (but still very good at +28) and with the rank and file he is pretty much up there with Palin — or not far behind.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/romney-conundrum.html
November 25th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Adam,
“but since 1964 the only Democrat incumbent to be defeated had an approval rating in the 30’s. That doesn’t impune Reagan but it simply doesn’t tell us that much.”
And the only one to not be defeated was Clinton. So that doesn’t tell us much either. That’s the problem when we have a data set of 2.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
MWS,
No doubt. But the point is that zebra was trying to make a case that only a conservative like Palin could beat an incumbent Democrat like Obama. I just don’t think that’s true and in fact I suspect she would fare worse under pressure where she has a tendancy to buckle. A moderate or a conservative will beat Obama – it won’t matter – if his approval is only in the 30’s.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Voter,
“It’s not a huge group but it’s the one most likely to cross over and vote for Obama in 2012 and thus Republicans really need to hold onto them if they want to win the next Presidential election.”
But the group is voting for Palin anyway if you go by the last PPP(D) poll. She was winning 85% of Republicans overall to 10% for Obama.
What it means is that they won’t vote for her in a primary but they’ll vote for her in a general just as those Republicans who think the party isn’t conservative enough won’t vote for Mitt in a primary but will vote for him in a general.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Adam,
Repeat of the Corzine/Christie matchup?
November 25th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Tommy Boy,
Exactly. Corzine was radioactive with numbers in the 30’s and the race was ultimately about Corzine – no matter how much he tried to shift the debate.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
#36:
If Obama’s approval rating is 45% or worse, than any Republican could beat Obama. Bush’s approval rating hovered around 50% and he barely won re-election. In the end, it isn’t really who we nominate. A President’s re-election campaign is about that President, not who the out party nominates.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
It doesn’t take all this analysis to realize Palin has a massive electability problem.
All you have to do is to talk to non-ideological swing voters about what they think of Palin.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
41,
Yeah. And it’s sort of cemented. As much as the arch-conservative personality cultists wish otherwise.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
But Tommy Boy:
How you would fare in a general election will have everything to do with how you fare in the primaries. After all of the media blast and the book tour and the round-the-clock FOX interviews, Palin still ends up with negative net ratings, and Romney and Huck each have positive net ratings; Huck is more acceptable to the moderates than Palin and pretty much acceptable to the conservatives as Palin. This does not bode well for a Palin nomination. Favorable net ratings count; and negative net ratings count even more. The voting constituency will not be comfortable with a Palin nomination if she is still registering net negatives by 2011. Of course, all this is subject to change — for everyone — but this is the immediate point of discussion.
Someone mentioned Corzine/Christie. I’m not sure why, but that is a perfect example of how unfavorabilities will kill you. Corzine was never going to win, even with a third party, because too many New Jerseyites wanted Corzine out. Incumbents certainly don’t win with huge negatives. So if Obama is that bad in 2012, then I agree — they will all have an equal chance to beat him because Obama will be the unelectable candidate. But if Obama is sputtering and beatable — but not desimated by dreadful negatives — then everyone’s electability against Obama becomes an issue.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I wouldn’t underestimate Palin three years out.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Adam,
“A moderate or a conservative will beat Obama – it won’t matter – if his approval is only in the 30’s.”
I agree with that, short of the proverbial dead girl or live boy found the weekend before the election.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Voter,
But from the last two polls, it doesn’t appear that either Huckabee or Romney will be able to make an electability argument against Palin based on the data because they are polling only 3 points better against Obama. A Republican electorate will not view that as significant advantage. You are right though that Huckabee is looking strong (though on not on Intrade).
Keep in mind too that a strong majority of the indies that will be showing up to vote in our primaries will likely be conservative to conservative leaning indies, two groups in which Palin probably has higher favorables than either Romney or Huckabee.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I wouldn’t underestimate Obama three years out. He’s good at two things. Campaigning and lying, which are pretty much the same things.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Voter,
Keep in mind also that Huckabee and Romney are polling at over 30% among liberals and yet, only winning 4% of liberals against Obama.
Effectively, a favorable rating from a liberal is irrelevant because they won’t vote for Romney or Huckabee under any circumstances.
My thought process has always been two-fold:
1) Favorables among Republicans are highly relevant for the purposes of a primary but irrelevant for the purposes of a general election.
2) Favorables among Democrats/liberals are completely irrelevant for any purpose because they’ll always vote for the Democrat/liberal (see e.g. Creigh Deeds and the Democrat support he received).
November 25th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
This is all just fun speculation. The numbers are going to shift based on how the candidates do in a primary contest. Last time Palin actually talked and campaigned – her numbers ran away from her. She need to, you know, fix that if she ever wants to get anywhere.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“since 1964 the only Democrat incumbent to be defeated had an approval rating in the 30’s.”
“Bush and Dole could have bested Carter with numbers like that.”
If 1980 was such a slam dunk that even old Dole or Bush “could have” defeated Carter, why don’t you explain why the polls showed it a “dead even race” until the weekend before the election? I suppose Bush and Dole would have won even bigger than Reagan. Maybe they would have picked up 15 Senate seats instead of the modest gain of 12 that Reagan won. Maybe those two electoral powerhouses would have carried 46 states instead of 44. Not even you believe that.
And as far as Dole’s electoral prowess, Clinton was vulnerable in 1996. The Dems had been clobbered in the 1994 midterms, but Dole was such a squish that Perot ran again and took 10% with hardly any effort at all. Bush 41, another moderate, had already failed to hold the White House in 1992, as had the moderate Gerald Ford in 1976.
“And the only one to not be defeated was Clinton. So that doesn’t tell us much either. That’s the problem when we have a data set of 2.”
It tells you that the conservative(Reagan) defeated the Dem incumbent, Carter, by 10 points while the moderate Dole not only failed to defeat the incumbent Clinton but was clobbered by 10 points. But, if you want more examples, the GOP moderate incumbents have not been successful in holding the White House either against any credible Democrat Challenge, losing to Carter in 1976 and to Clinton in 1992. (yea, I know that Tricky Dick won in 1972 against the least serious candidate in history, after Chappaquidick eliminated the candidate who could have beaten Nixon. And remember, Nixon, like Bush 43 ran as a conservative even though he governed as a liberal)
The point is that moderate GOP nominees tend to lose more often than not. There have been three four landslide GOP victories since 1964 and three were undeniably conservative landslides, 1980, 1984 and 1988 (being Reagan’s “third term”).
There have been three landslide GOP defeats, in 1992, 1996 and 2008 and all three were pasted on moderate GOP nominees. So much for moderate electability. It is a myth. Sorta like Mitt’s poll numbers. There is less there than meets the eye.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Perhaps it would help if you’d explain how a Palin Presidency would be more conservative than a Romney Presidency. In 08, Romney was by far the more conservative candidate. Giuliani and McCain were to the left of him. Only Tancredo was to his right.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Because the public already didn’t like Carter and they were waiting for a safe alternative. Once Reagan reassured them, it was in the bag. Dole or Carter would not have had that problem. “Killer rabbit” was never going to win unless our nominee said something really stupid.
Just because the party tends to nominate moderates in tough years doesn’t mean that conservatives would have fared any better. After Clinton was forced to the right because of the GOP sweep of congress, there was nothing any candidate of ours could have done.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
And Jesus Christ. How many times do we have to get dragged into the woods on this over and over again. Palin is not, has never been and never will be a goddamned Ronald Reagan.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
#49
“Last time Palin actually talked and campaigned – her numbers ran away from her. She need to, you know, fix that if she ever wants to get anywhere.”
I actually heard her talking, Adam, on Barbara Walters, Oreilly, Hannity, Levin, Beck and a zillion other shows. Her numbers seem to be”running away” all right, running away from Mitt, that is:
“Rasmussen did find that Palin held the highest favorable rating among Republicans at 81% (Huckabee had an 80% favorable rating among Republicans while Romney had a 63% favorable rating) and the highest “very favorable” rating among Republicans at 51% (Huckabee had a 40% “very favorable” rating among Republicans while Romney had a 17% “very favorable” rating among Republicans).”
Very favorable: 51-17. That is a 3-1 superiority among the most highly motivated GOP voters who will decide the nominee. It looks to me like your guy is the one who has to fix something and fast. The 2012 nomination is very quickly becoming hers for the asking.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
#52 – Dole or Bush would not have had that problem.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
53
If you want to talk trash like that post to someone else. You can’t make a rational argument, so you curse. Congratulations. Don’t wet your pampers.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
The 2012 nomination is very quickly becoming hers for the asking.
That’s kind of funny because she isn’t exactly tearing it up in polling when Republicans are asked who they want representing them in 2012. It’s not like no one knows who she is. Everyone knows. Everyone has an opinion. And yet she can’t seem to pull away from the pack. How the hell will she ever?
She can’t debate. She doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about. Mike Huckabee knows shit about foreign policy (or at least he did in 2008 when he was busy staying at a Holiday Inn Express) and he’ll still make mincemeat of Palin in a debate. Romney will do the same. Your girl is going to actually have to defend the fact that she is a lightweight and a quitter. I seriously can’t wait. She’s not going to win the nomination. She doesn’t have the stuff. And when she loses then maybe we can stop hearing about her and her Jerry Springer-worthy embarrasment of a family.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“And when she loses then maybe we can stop hearing about her and her Jerry Springer-worthy embarrasment of a family.”
You mean Track Palin, a soldier who served his country in Iraq and kills terrorits for a living? Or Trig Palin,a Downs Syndrome kid? I’m pretty sure the Republican electorate in any state is going to find the family comparision coming out in her favor.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I meant the drama. The tabloidiness. The nonsense. And then Sarah Palin goes and dignifies it and the cycle repeats itself. The PlayGirl posing. I am sick of hearing it. It’s never going to go away as long as this woman is in the spotlight. It’s not helpful.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
#58
I think some of the wailing and grinding of teeth is the result of Mitt’s utter and embarassing collapse:
Mass. healthcare undermines Romney’s GOP support
A new poll shows that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now has a less than 50 percent favorability rating among Republican voters.
Public Policy Polling has released its monthly 2012 survey, which finds that while 65 percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and 75 percent have a favorable opinion of former GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, only 48 percent view Mitt Romney favorably. Romney’s popularity has fallen 19 points in the poll since May.
Tom Jensen (Public Policy Polling)Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling says the healthcare plan that Romney passed in Massachusetts when he was governor is now giving GOP voters pause about him.
“There’s a feeling that what he did is not that [different] from what President Obama’s trying to do — and certainly, having undertaken any initiative similar to President Obama is not going to play well with the Republican base,” Jenson notes. “There’s also a feeling that people are already sort of starting to look toward 2012 and sort of really pick sides, and people who support Palin or Huckabee for president think that [those two are] the true conservative choices. I think they’re sort of souring on Romney in general because they don’t want him to be the presidential nominee.”
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=783398
The GOP primary lectorate just doesn’t want what he is peddling. No thanks. No way.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Adam,
As a fellow blue-state Republican, let me ask you this question. Who do you think would have a higher favorable rating among Republicans from Washington State between Palin, Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain [insert any Republican]? I’d bet $225 that Palin would be ahead of all three in blue Washington (and ahead by a 5-10 point margin]. Your theory seems to be that Palin’s Republican favorables come from her polling in the South among Republicans. That theory doesn’t seem to be supported by much polling (besides deep blue states in the NE that are irrelevant in a general election anyway). In fact, I’d argue that she’s probably the only Republican that doesn’t see any significant geographical disparity in her favorable rating among Republicans.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Zebra: #54
The Republican party will never nominate a Populist….Palin’s message has Populist overtones, especially her NY-23 Hoffman endorsement, as does many of her other Face Book messages….Romney is NOT a RINO he is a traditional Republican…always has been.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I just don’t understand the fascination with Palin. Her whole state of being irks me. I don’t want a standard bearer that sounds stupid. I don’t want to hear about her “Going Rogue”. I don’t want my presidential candidate to “Go Rogue.” I want my presidential candidate to go through the proper channels in order to become president. Facebook? Really? What the hell is that? She uses her cult of personality, directs it to Facebook to get into the public debate? What kind of presidential candidate does Facebook? It sounds like something a stupid college kid would do. Why doesn’t she grow up? It’s beneath the dignity of what we’d expect from a presidential candidate.
There’s more. I don’t like the rock star persona. That bothered me about Obama. I don’t want a rock star. We didn’t want a rock star. Remember? That was a major mode of attack against “The One” – but it’s ok with Palin, I guess. I want a serious person that gives serious thought to the issues at hand. I don’t want an Obama with white skin, an extra X-chromosome and a skirt to be our nominee. There’s no there there.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Actually, Obama’s purported “rock-star” persona didn’t bother me. I’m in the 18-29 demo and it fits with my generation. Who he is culturally and his positions is what has always drawn my ire.
What’s the problem with Facebook? It was an effective tool of the other party. I don’t see why we would want to cede social networking to the Democrat party.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
#62
“Romney is NOT a RINO he is a traditional Republican…always has been.”
Romney is a RINO elitist. He is crashing in every poll from Rasmussen to PPP. His MassCare debacle has become, as I predicted some time ago, his Waterloo. The polls are all bearing it out. He will never be the GOP nominee. Never.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Tommy Boy,
That’s a great question. I don’t know. I suspect Rudy would poll better than Romney. Palin may be ahead – but she’s not above 35. She’s never going to get majority support because she is too polarizing and divisive. Her persona turns off an awful lot of people.
I’d point out though that deep blue states in the NE, while absolutely unimportant in a general election – do still count for something. Delegates add up. Even if you grant for the sake of argument that she COULD win a primary contest (I don’t see it, but just for the sake of argument let’s assume so) will she ever do it in such a way as to not turn off a good chuunk of the party? She’ll be a minority candidate just like McCain and the Independents, who already know Palin from seeing her face all over TV, are going to abandon us. They came in handy in VA and NJ this year and we’re going to need them again.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I don’t have a problem with the use of Facebook per se. When you use that as a way to hide behind tough media interviews – because you suck doing anything off script – then it’s a problem. Obama did Facebook. But he didn’t use it as a substitute for traditional methods like Palin seems to be doing.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I wonder what Romney will run as in 2012. Right now, everyone seems to think he’s going to run as a moderate. However, it seems most people have forgotten the Romney of 07/08. He ran farther to the right than almost anyone.
Is Romney really going to be able to portray himself as a moderate without massive ‘flip-flopping’ accusations?
November 25th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Also, this is totally off topic, but this just shows how unpredictable elections can be:
http://media.gallup.com/ELECTION2004/electionHistory_1980_1.gif
November 25th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“The Republican party will never nominate a Populist”
The GOP nominated a populist in 1980, the inimitable Ronald Reagan. See Matthew Continetti’s excellent article in the Weekly Standard comparing Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin as populists versus the establishments in their respective eras.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/180xvziz.asp
Palin is the heir to Reagan’s legacy and Jackson’s as well. Romney is the heir to Nicholas Biddle.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Kevin,
He’s not going to have to position as a moderate. The Palin kool-aid drinkers like zebra are going to bully every candidate not named Palin and brand them as insufficently conservative. Apparantly rigid adherence to ideology is the only thing that matters in the modern day GOP. Pragmatic problem solving means squat unless you check every box.
Romney doesn’t have to do anything but sit back and drink a decaffeinated coke.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
#66 She’s not divisive and polarizing in a Republican primary. There’s a 27-point gap in favorables nationwide between Romney and Palin among Republicans. She’s polling at around the same level that Clinton and Obama polled at with Democrats during their primary battle and it’s tough to say that either of them were divisive in their party (though a case can be made that they were to the general electorate).
The only Republican group with which she struggles is the incredibly small part of the party that believes the party is too conservative right now. This group won’t vote for her in a primary. But the last poll suggests that they’ll go with her in a general election against Obama. This group of the party is also the part of the party that is least likely to vote in a primary.
I think you make too much of the delegates in the NE. The same thing can be said about other regions, where her favorables among Republicans are likely in the 75-80% range if you accept the notion that she’s not viewed favorably among some NE Republicans.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Zebra #65
Vote for a populist?. Don’t think so… “the people” vs “the elites” is really the wrong message to send to the Republican voters that is outside of Palin’s grassroot support. Has there ever been a Populist win A Republican nomination?
There is a populist party you know….
November 25th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Then why isn’t she doing as well as Giuliani did in 2007 among GOPers? He had name recognition. She has name recognition. If she is so “consensus” then why is she barely ahead. Could it be that while people may like her personally – when it comes to actually believeing that she is presidential material – there is more than a healthy dose of skepticism? That certainly is polarizing.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Um…
Favorability and approval are not the same thing.
Obama’s favorability rating is way ahead of Palin’s!
November 25th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
#72
From the Continetti article:
“The similarities between Jackson, Bryan, Reagan, and Sarah Palin are striking. This is not to say that they are alike in every respect. Nor is it to say that Palin’s achievements to date rank with the others’. And, of course, American populism is a deep and complex tradition. But it’s nonetheless true that a couple of traits span the centuries and unify these four political figures. The first is the reaction they provoke among the elites of their age–what one might call the “Coonskin Cap Critique.” The second is their advocacy of dispersed power, open markets, and American individualism.
Elites regard challenges to their authority with condescension and contempt. They routinely underestimate the capacities of populist leaders. They mock their enemies as uneducated provincials who lack expert knowledge and therefore have no place interfering in politics. They contemptuously refer to the supporters of populist politicians as an ill-kempt and dangerous mob.”
This reminds me of some of the vitriol hurled at Palin on this very site.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
True. But if we send up a lousy candidate that Obama can tee off on for a year straight, then I guarantee his approval rating will NOT be in the 30s, no matter how poor a job he’s doing.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
More from the brilliant Continetti article. It really hits home:
“And Palin? Time and again, she has run against elites who, in her view, are ignoring the public interest. She overthrew a three-term incumbent mayor of Wasilla because he wasn’t as conservative as the people he represented. She used sales tax revenues and bond issues to help the town grow into a thriving suburb. She knocked off a Republican energy commissioner, a Republican attorney general, and an incumbent Republican governor because she felt that they were helping themselves and their friends and not the Alaskan people. As governor, she passed a sweeping ethics reform, changed the tax code so Alaskans got their fair share of oil revenues, and introduced competition and transparency into the construction of a natural gas pipeline.
Palin has an intuitive faith in builders and traders, in hockey moms and plumbers. She is clearly on the side of competitive, entrepreneurial capitalism. But she hasn’t spent much time on the national stage. Nor has she tied her pointed criticisms of the Obama agenda and the liberal media to a larger argument about how ordinary people with common sense can rescue the American economy and revitalize American democracy. Palin has Jacksonian instincts, but she still hasn’t forged her own political persuasion. Time to add flesh to the bone.”
November 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Zebra #70
As long as I’ve been a Republican, the GOP has always encouraged and supported education, business, and the free market.. Why are people that do well in life now called elitists?…..I’ve just never seen that word in connection with republicans…Rush (of all people) started calling republicans that several months ago to push his social movement.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
#75 Maureen Dowd herself made the same mistake (see the second to last paragraph in this op-ed).
Thanks for the Memories
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
November 25th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Exactly. And that more succinctly states what I was getting at in #74.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
70:
Oh wonderful. Palin is the heir to Jackson. A president who successfully brought the national economy to its knees for the better part of a decade with his wrongheaded anti-bank nonsense.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Let’s look at some polls from 2005:
Most Fall 2005 polls didn’t even include Obama as an option!
November 25th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I don’t believe that most poll respondents would be able to tell the difference unless you asked both questions in the same poll (favorability and approval). If you asked one without the other, I don’t think most poll respondents would draw the distinction.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:03 am
%82
“A president who successfully brought the national economy to its knees for the better part of a decade with his wrongheaded anti-bank nonsense.”
Why don’t you read the article? She stands, as Jackson did and as Reagan did, against the elites or rather, the elites stand against her. Cherrypicking an issue to try to define her is intellectually dishonest. That is like tagging someone who is an ideological or philosophical heir of as likely to involve us in World War. It is an historical non sequitur.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Some of you are not reading what the polls have been telling us over and over and over…..favorability ratings has little correlation to wanting to vote a person into office. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the Rasmussen and quickly determine that. Scores of others polls have been screaming the same thing. With Republicans, many (inluding me) have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, but would I in any way want her to be our candidate? …… not in a million years. Quit debating favorables and start reading what the polls are really tellng us.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:19 am
85:
When I think of Jackson’s presidency I think of 3 things. Psychological disorders, killing lots of Indians, and wrecking the U.S. economy.
Besides, you’re the one who brought up Biddle.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Andrew Jackson = Trail of Tears….
November 26th, 2009 at 12:51 am
“Besides, you’re the one who brought up Biddle.”
Biddle was a tool of Henry Clay who deliberately tightened credit in the early 1830s to throw the country into a recession to try to hurt Jackson and to help Clay. Jackson was not principally to blame for the economic woes. The tight credit policies of a lot of the banks and their failure to back their deposits with silver and gold were principally to blame. I hate to break it to you. A lot of bankers, not all, are crooked or unscrupulous. If you don’t know that you are either naive or you are one of the former. Ot r you are a Romneybot for whom Wall Street and high finance can do no wrong.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:56 am
It’s always entertaining to see people argue over data and failing to realize that there are situations–there have been enough to fill an entire wing of a library–when number crunching has been an exercise in futility.
As an independent it seems to me that the greater effort to forecast the outcome of the 2012 election (which is ridiculous at this point) is being made to prove that Palin can’t wind up in the oval office. Similar exercises in
forecasting have dismissed the possibility of heavier-than-air-flight, the feasibility of nuclear weaponry, and the strong probability that the U.S. now would have been decimated by an AIDS epidemic.
The true victims of those who bow at the alter of data and then go to extremes to sway public opinion to their theory is the public. The typical American has neither the time, the resources, or the specialized training to
prove the insufficiencies of the statistical methods to themselves so they default to the pollsters and political scientists or the researchers. For example: antihypertensive drug is reported to be six times as effective in reducing stroke as placebo. Sounds good, right? The data, however indicated that the placebo prevented strokes in 12 subjects per 100,000 while the placebo only prevented two. If you look at the data, however, the
probability of having a stroke in the group using the drug was .00002. The group dosed with the placebo’s probability was .00012. The true difference was .000012–ten in 100,0000, or 1:000. If this drug cost you
$300 a month out of pocket would you buy it? I hope not.
This kind of statistical “sleight of hand” misleads the public routinely and can have devastating social consequences.
The intellectual antidote is common sense.
No reasonable person would look at these scatterplots and suggest they are in any way predictive of an event two years away.
Would they?
November 26th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Correction: “that the placebo prevented strokes in 12 subjects per 100,000 while the placebo only prevented two.” should have read that the antihypertensive medication prevented strokes in 12 subjects per 100,000 while the placebo only prevented two.”
“The true difference was .000012–ten in 100,0000, or 1:000.” should have read “or 1:1,000.”
November 26th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Let’s see. You mention Biddle, I call you on it, and it means that I’m a blind Rombot. Interesting little paranoia you’ve got there.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:44 am
With regards to the populism versus elite contest, the issue is not whether Mrs. Palin is a populist and to what degree she is, (after all there are still people who claim she is not populist enough) the issue is that Mr. Romney is viewed as an elitist. Few of us need to have a real mcCoy Populist candidate. However, most modern Republicans (especially in this bad economy) will chose a populist over an elitist if they are absolutely forced to make a choice. Mr. Romney was making effort very early on in this calendar year his CPAC speech as an example) to distance himself from extreme elitism, but many in his camp were uncomfortable with this and as events unfolded, Conservatives began to view him as an elitist again. If Mr. Romney cannot shake his image, he run the risk of being the 3rd person, never-mind 2nd of the Big 3. Mr. Romney has missed one too many opportunities to stand with the people and among others, I could not vote for him in the primary. If Mrs. Palin does not get her act together (and so far she is) and Mr. Pawlenty does, I can simply become a Pawlentyite. In a true M & M contest, unless Mr. Huckabee and company really start turning into exploding loose cannons, I would hold my nose in the voting booth and vote for him over Mr. Romney. Yes Mr. Romney does well among Independents and moderates and he is even breaking into a few ethnic groups, but if he cannot get more Conservatives to at least tolerate him, then Mrs. Palin almost becomes viable be default. There are reasons that talk radio jumped off Mr. Romney’s band wagon. If anyone listened to the fill in host for Mr. Hannity (Mr. Slewa, I believe) they understand Mr. Romney’s trouble’s rather fast and his name was not even mentioned.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Sarah Palin = Andrew Jackson = William Jennings Bryan?
Hoo boy.
I didn’t say it, folks.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Nobody with a resume, complete with incomplete previous positions, would EVER got promoted or hired to an MORE demanding job. Obama would have a field day with Mrs. Palin in 2012. She needs to get elected to a significant position and then actually finish what she starts, for once. If she were a college student, she would have a transcript of incompletes and would never graduate. You all know that. She is in the press right now because Rupert needs ratings and she needs money. Nothing wrong with that, but winning in 2012 will take a bit more.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:18 am
OJ,
You’re starting to sound like Adam Graham, and that’s not a compliment.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Well, Martha I am sure you thought I sounded like Mr. Graham for a while, I guess it is what it is and I actually take it as neither a compliment nor an insult. Nevertheless have a good Thanks-Giving. I imagine your Thank-Giving will be better than mine.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:35 am
OJ,
What do you mean about your Thanksgiving? I hope all is well for you!
(Even though you are driving me crazy with your Romney is an elitist bunk.):-)
November 26th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Yeah, all is well for me and yes I still have a lot to be thankful for. Unfortunately, my wife’s Left of Center anti-Palinite friend invited us for dinner today. I do not normally post on Facebook, but since I have had enough of her propaganda on Facebook I posted the fact that I was reading Going Rogue. Haha, I am waiting for the fun to begin so to speak.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:11 am
99. Best to avoid political topics on Thanksgiving, anyway!
November 26th, 2009 at 8:18 am
OJ, just make sure the gun and liquor cabinets are firmly locked, and you won’t wind up as a sad story on the evening news.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Haha, you are right MarkG. I am sure it won’t be that bad. You have a good Thanksgiving too.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:43 am
This was an interesting thread.
The Continetti article has always struck me as odd, though. I’ll start to perceive Palin as a Jacksonian “populist” (and that term seems ahistorical in the context of the times) when she starts referring to Congress or the Beltway Establishment as the “Great Whore of Babylon.”
The easier analogy with Jackson is that Palin is likewise a Westerner and a Frontiers(wo)man.
And let us hope the Palin coalition doesn’t include too many anti-Clay and anti-Biddle types. They’re likely to upset the anti-Calhoun faction, which will lead to a real electoral disaster.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am
[...] Obama’s Breakeven Points Versus Palin and Romney: Nate Silver has published an analysis of how far Pres. Obama’s Gallup approval ratings could drop before he could expect to tie Govs. Palin and Romney in head-to-head elections: There have been 11 Palin versus Obama polls that have come out this year — 8 by Public Policy Polling and one each from Rasmussen, Clarus, and Marist. Those polls showed Obama approval ranging from 49 percent to 55 percent — not far from Dowd’s sweet spot — but Obama defeating Palin by margins ranging from 6 points to 23. If we make a scatterplot of these polls, we can extrapolate backward to get an estimate of where Obama’s approval rating would need to be in order to bring Palin into a tie with him; the answer is about 43 percent…. – race42008.com, 11-25-09 [...]
November 26th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Zebra says: “Romney is a RINO elitist. He is crashing in every poll from Rasmussen to PPP”
Pretty nice way to crash in Rasmussen for Mitt! Moved up to even with Obama, and ahead of all others. Way ahead of Obama on favorables, whatever that’s worth.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:16 am
OJ, I feel for you today. Be sure to eat a lot of turkey and drink a lot of wine, if you drink that is. Then you can fall asleep and ignore the leftist at dinner.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Martha,
“Best to avoid political topics on Thanksgiving, anyway!”
Heck no.
Politics and religion make for the most festive atmosphere.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#14
Romney didn’t face any scrutiny??? The man had to give a speech on religion as he was constantly badgered about it and thus lacked opportunity to focus on the issues. He was ridiculed for the dog riding on the car, for “flip flopping” for being “inauthentic” and was attacked at all sides by different Republican candidates who decided he was the threat and that it was in their best interest to gang up on him.
You are extremely ignorant if you think Romney didn’t face any scrutiny.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Thanks DanL, you have a Good Thanksgiving dinner too. I am not actually a heavy alcohol drinker, the Turkey will make me tired enough as it is and I like Turkey. I am sure there will be a few rightists at the dinner so it won’t be too bad.
“Politics and religion make for the most festive atmosphere.” Haha, the best was when I went back to my homeland for a holiday a few years or so back. I got to set back and listen to my relatives argue politics because they had their own election going on so I did not have to listen to anti-American non-sense by a few of them that time.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Beck’s Sexist Reason For Ruling Out Palin-Beck Ticket: She’d Always Be ‘Yapping’ Like We’re ‘In The Kitchen’
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/26/beck-palin-kitchen/
November 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Literate people ’should boycott books’, says Murdoch biographer
Michael Wolff asks readers to stop buying ghostwritten ‘brand enhancers’ until publishers reform their output
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/26/literate-people-boycott-books-murdoch-biographer
November 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
#110
Interesting to see that people are actually taking Glenn Beck seriously when he and his two co-hosts can’t stop laughing during that entire conversation. Sarcasm is apparently no longer allowed on national radio shows.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Aron thanks for 110. Maybe Beck’s slobbering love affair with Palin is coming to an end. I wonder how much of his audience he’d lose if he starts bashing her on his Fox show.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Palin > Romney
November 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Mitt Romney is a good man.
But not for President.
We need greatness at this time in our history.
Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, one or both.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Fact: ONLY ONE DEMACRAT HAS BEEN REELECTED PRES SINCE 1964, Bill Clinton.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Some general tenets — apply them to whatever candidate you deem fit:
1. Favorability does not connote electability; voters will not necessrily pull the lever for someone they like and almost never will pull it for someone they don’t.
2. In early polls, numbers usually reflect name recognition. When two or three candidates have equal name recognition, then things to look at are trends and net favorable/unfavorable ratios.
3. Having few or no undecided voters early in the game suggests a candidate has reached his/her ceiling — not a particularly good place to be if you are polling in the lower forties — but a great place to find yourself if you are polling in the mid-50’s.
4. Candidates with net unfavorable ratios are starting out in a disadvantaged position.
5. Most non-political voters (which will constitute the majority of likely voters that sway elections) do not recognize nor care about such terms as “RINO,” “libertarian,” “populist”; they do care about “integrity,” “likeability,” “ablility to put forth common sense and logical reasoning but only if easily understood and repeatable”; they prefer “positive” campaigning (although they will react and be affected by “negative” campaigning); they are impressed with spiffy soundbites and off-the-cuff one-liners (even though they profess otherwise); in these troubled times, especially, they are looking for a calming effect and a unifier.
6. After the whirlwind Obama administration, experience will matter very much — if experience doesn’t matter, then Obama did well and will be reelected.
7. The candidate who will have greatest chance to win the general election, and thus the greatest chance to capture the nomination, will exhibit most (if not all) of the following characteristics: appealable and well-liked across a broad spectrum; articulate, easily communicative and media responsive; calming and uplifting, while always exhibiting a commanding position of strength; exhibiting a trustworthy nature to the vast amount of non-political voters.
8. Following up on #7, capturing the nomination has EVERYTHING to do with the ability to win in the general election.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Finasteride….
Finasteride propecia. Prostate finasteride. Finasteride. Propecia side effects finasteride. Generic finasteride. Isc home finasteride. Finasteride side effects….