UPDATED: Poll: Alaskans Have That "Lovin' Feeling"
H/T TommyReport
Question: Would you say you feel positive or negative about Sarah Palin? And is that very (positive or negative) or somewhat (positive or negative)?
Overall: 61/33 positive/negative
Very positive: 41%
Somewhat positive: 20%
Somewhat negative: 13%
Very Negative: 20%
Don't Know/Refused: 6%
SOURCE
Now, let's see if that political science statistics class will finally pay off: Judging by these results, you can say that the "governor's approval index" is 21%.
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, the President's "approval index" is at 4%, which is his lowest to date.
It looks like the President has lost that "lovin' feeling."
It's gone, gone, gone...
Crash and burn, Maverick...
Update by JR:
Reader FOGB points out:
A little late to the discussion here, but it would appear that these numbers from Hayes UNDERSTATE Sarah's popularity, as their sampling methodology seems to systemically over represent Democrats in Alaska.
I determined this by going back to the poll they did on Nov. 2,and compared it to actual results two days later. They used the same telephone methodology in this survey - 400 telephone interviews with an error of +/- 4.9%. Here are the results of that poll, with actual election results in brackets:
President:
McCain (R)_____48 (59)
Obama (D)______45 (38)
Other/Undec.____7 (3)
Senate:
Stevens (R)____42 (47)
Begich (D)_____49 (48)
other/Undec.____9 (5)
House:
Young (R)______43 (50)
Berkowitz (D)__49 (45)
Other/Undec.____8 (5)
This analysis shows their sampling methodology overstates Democratic support by about 7 points. Therefore, Sarah's popularity numbers are probably at the HIGH end of the margin of error, or 5 points MORE than stated.
Therefore her popularity is probably in the high 60s - not the low 60s.
UPDATE by RAM: The ADN has finally gotten around to posting on these latest poll numbers.
Posts
102 comments:
Palin's popularity numbers will continue to go up in Alaska. By 2010 she should have an easy run for re-election. With her in the state doing her job so well Alaskans see this and appreciate the job she is doing. I also think all the petty gripes of the legislature will get on more people's nerves. It gets more obvious they are griping just to smear Palin. She is so clean it gets old hearing all the negatives. Makes you want to tell them, just shut up and do YOUR job, the Guv. is doing her's. GO SARAH!!!
She has these ratings after 2 years in office, after a bruising national campaign and defeat, after she took on the opposition party's national leader and in the middle of a recession where petrodollars have dried up. Compare that with Obambi who has been office for less than 2 months.
To play devil's advocate Sarah's popularity in Alaska revealed why she was qualified and an excellent choice by McCain but by the same token was not a significant factor in determining voter preference during the 2008 campaign, although the McCain handlers had something to do with dismissing it as not relevant to the national campaign.
I agree with the axiom 'all politics is local' except for Presidential politics and that Sarah will be re-elected if she ran for re-election in 2010.
However in terms of future ambition, that's like a golfer making the cut and earning a good paycheck.
If that is all that Sarah wants out of politics, she then must be labelled a success as many journeymen golfers are, but like the golfer that makes the cut, playing on the weekend is no guarantee that one is going to win the trophy (for Sarah winning the Presidency).
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket but trying to be realistic on what poll numbers in Alaska mean vis-a-vis national politics.
She still has these ratings, despite the vicious campaign waged against her, by not only the Democrats and the MSM but by corners of the 'right media' like Halcro and Fagan. We have a Governor supposedly with that high a rating, but that's because he's jettisoned every conservative principle down the pike. Little wonder, that they wouldn't want to let her go, even for the good of the Nation; the pickings are pretty slim. So is the thing confirmed our not
I believe the opposite actually.
If Palin's numbers were in the tank ... it would be all over the place.
Her numbers are critical to future ambitions.
If her numbers were below 50% it would make re-election tough.
Corzine in NJ is in the tank ... this is a strong dem state ... he has a good chance of losing in the next election.
Joseph Russo:
Do you really believe that Americans in general (except for Alaskans) would slow down or stop donating to SarahPAC based on state popularity polls?
The country sees Sarah in a completely different light than Alaskans see her. They are already sold on her.
Quite frankly, for most conservatives, Rush Limbaugh listeners and Republicans Sarah's potential candidacy for POTUS provides a means to an end and that end is to defeat Obama in 2012. Including myself, there are millions in America who feel there is no more important mission to accomplish in the next 4 years.
However, this does not mean we see Sarah in robotic or machine-like terms. We all know that Sarah exudes a dynamic presence and brings a hell of a lot to the table; even if she were not a superstar authentic politician Sarah boasts a belief in American exceptionalism, the free enterprise syste, limited government, fiscal responsibility, belief in the natural rights of man and defending the Constitution, a pro-life position and a proponent of a strong national defense that enhances natonal security.
But the bottom line of why SarahPAC's coffers are apparently bursting at the seams right now and perhaps could cause Michael Steele his job at the RNC, is that Sarah gives the GOP the best chance to first do well in the mid-term elections and then to take down Obama in 2012--it's as simple as that.
If that sentiment changes, it will not because Sarah loses a few points among a parochial electorate in Alaska, it will be because someone else rises to the forefront and becomes perceived as a better choice to take down Obama.
All I am is saying is that you can't lose re-election in 2010(Alaska) and expect to be the president in 2012.
You can't have a 40% approval rating ... it would be in the media every single day, that Alaska do not even approve of her.
I'm not big on polls but I would rather her stay above 50%
Am I right in saying that the actual numbers are Positive 64.3% and negative 38.7%, and not 61%/40% as you have reported. This is according to the Source. This 'positive level is in line with the recent Daily KOS survey in January.
Joseph Russo:
That is why I firmly believe that Sarah should NOT run for re-election or for Murkowski's Senate seat and devote her semi-undivided time, energy and SarahPAC money (remember she will still be governor of Alaska) to getting more conservatives and Republicans elected to Congress to further legitimize and enhance her credentials as a battlefield leader and catalyst.
Not running for re-election would avoid the setback of being perceived a loser.
Remember if SarahPAC has the potential to match Obama's $749m in the entire campaign we have to look at the bigger picture.
Now back to my point about Sarah's crediblity with the lower 48: if Sarah brings home the bacon and catapults more GOP candidates to Congress or causes the GOP to take back one or both Houses of Congress it will not matter to them one bit that she is not active in a government job. To those who support SarahPAC or who call themselves conservatives or Republicans taking Obama down is their only priority.
Emerson,
No, Hays misstated her "somewhat positive" number as it's not 23.8%, but rather just over 20%.
Her negative number is about 33% and not 39% because 6% either wouldn't give or don't have an opinion as to whether they have positive or negative feelings about the governor.
Emerson- you caught the same numbers I did. It just looks like the "somewhat positive" is actually 24% and not 20% (if we are rounding).
Either way, it is a staggering number.
Right now, the only numbers that count are Alaska's opinion of the Governor. After all, that is her job and that is how she should be judged.
I see 65/33 for approval/disapproval, not 61/33.
I dare someone to post to the Hays Research poll on the Standard, MudFlats and various anti-Palin sites (where's pal from Spokane Brian with his Standard account?) Cockerham will probably post it later on the Politics blog...you'll get the typical anti-intellectual "attack the pollster" argument.
They'll likely charge that Hays was incredibly off in her final McCain-Obama poll...that's true but how was she off? She underpolled McCain-Palin as she only had McCain leading 48-45 (a laughable result).
Here's my theory on why Palin is especially difficult to poll in Alaska....her strongest demo from the polls that I've seen is white 18-29 year-olds, the most likely demo without access to a landline. Pollsters like Hays may just miss Palin's strongest demo.
Another theory is that pollsters don't often call rural Alaska, where Palin gets a respectable amount of support from Natives and a huge amount of support from rural whites.
Anyway, that's my polling spiel for the day....the poll is consistent with the numbers from Moore, Dittman, and Kos/Research 2000. If they are all wrong, then it's because they underpolled Palin and she's actually polling much higher (the Alaska exit poll showed her at 73% approval on election day, much higher than any of her favorable/unfavorable polling leading to November 4th).
I believe Sarah needs to run and win Gov. in 2010. The MSM bashed her on lack of experience. She needs to serve a full term and half of another. Plus the line of that she is a "one hit wonder" by only winning one "big" election. (Gov. in 2006) would be used.
As long as her numbers are this high she would not need to spend tons of money in an election. It would be an "easy" election. (A relative term of course). Then she can go into full Pres. mode.
No I think she needs to be a sitting Governor. Huckabee gives me a bad taste because he is not a sitting anything now, I don't want others feeling like that about Sarah.
lipstick:
At the risk of repeating myself let me present the response of Jim to Joining Team Sarah Radio on Friday when asked whether he thought that Sarah would run for President. He said: "It will depend a lot on the mid-term elections and how many conservatives are elected to Congress."
I agree completely with Jim. That is why I feel it is imperative that Sarah (assuming she has an interest in running for POTUS in 2012)take an active role and devote her attention in leveraging herself and SarahPAC money to increase the GOP representation in Congress substantially.
Sarah cannot be two places at once and she is not wonder woman. Unfortunately, Sarah is burdened by the geographical location of Alaska. Much of my argument is based on that reality. If Sarah were indeed a governor of a lower 48 state I would not have any problem with her running for re-election but that is not the case here.
Now I suppose the argument can be made that Sarah is so popular in Alaska that she does not have to really mount a CAMPAIGN for re-election and thus could actually spend much of her time next summer and fall in the lower 48. I would not discount that entirely but I think the Alaska Dems and Obama would make her life so unbearable if she did not actively campaign for re-election that it would cause her to divide her loyalties and her energies (preparing for debates, responding to local opposition or media criticism) and thus play with her brain. And we presently see this in Alaska right now as the anklebiters are constantly harping at Sarah for leaving the state and the semi-controversy whether Sarah will keynote the Congressional dinner in June.
Of course my premise is all based on Sarah wanting to run for President in 2012 and Sarah Pac having the potential to raise at least $100m by Nov. 2010.
Of the latter I have no doubt; to former that is up in the air; but as I have said before if Sarah does not want to run for President in 2012 then she should run for re-election and then run for Begich's seat in 2014. That's pretty simple to understand, i think.
Great,
Public Policy Polling (D) Blog polled Obama v. Palin nationally...
"How many electoral votes would Barack Obama get if the GOP nominated Sarah Palin in 2012?
We'll have a new national poll to help answer that question tomorrow."
This poll is purely designed to embarrass her...frankly, if she's within 15, that'd be a miracle.
Lipstick:
Referring to my earlier post, I think I made the point why SarahPAC is so popular and apparently flush with dollars that otherwise would have gone to the RNC: Sarah gives the GOP the best chance to take Obama down in 2012. If Sarah were not a known quantity from the 2008 campaign (drawing large crowds and generating enthusiasm) I would agree that she needs to build up her credibility; but back to my Tiger Woods analogy. After Tiger won the Masters in 1997 by 13 strokes, Tiger was regarded as superstar. He did not ever have to prove his credibility as a great golfer. Likewise Sarah proved to millions of Americans that she is also a superstar; thus she no longer has to prove herself to the base of the Republican Party. Yes she still has to prove herself to independent and moderates but that is what campaigns are all about.
Believe me lipstick nobody considers Sarah a 'one-hit wonder' as nobody considered TW a one hit wonder when it took him another 10 majors to win another major. Once you arrive at superstar status you don't look back until you can't perform any longer; and Sarah is far from there yet.
Quit worrying about PP, we never heard of them, until what this month, what's their track record.
You were worried about Hays, and for what. Frankly I've been skeptical since my experience with Fabrizio/McLaughlin at CPAC, last month; the Mitt push poll. We've all become a little sensitive on the subject, it's understandable, we've been run over by a runaway train, and we're trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel, we think she's it. We were looking forward to first the CPAC speech, and now the NRSC dinner, because
she lights up a room, she inspires
in a world filled with doldrums and frankly dispair. That's a strong part why Sarah Pac will be
a major force in the future, regardless of whether she goes for the big prize. One would certainly hope so, but we shall see
There is no way Palin can enter 2012 as the 49 year old former one term governor of Alaska.
That will be no different than her running as the 44 year old one term governor of Alaska for VP.
It just won't work.
If Obama is a failure, there is no way people will vote for a young candidate again UNLESS that young candidate is a two term governor.
JR, in the usual course, I would agree with you, but given Sarah's stature coming off the 2008 campaign, the usual rules may not apply.
I don't know, there is something to be said for getting Sarah away from the anklebiters so she can do as she wishes between 2010 and 2012.
Concerned Citizen:
No, you're the useful idiot who wasted your time and money helping elect someone who doesn't give a crap about you now that he's in the White House. He and his wife are living a jet-set life style of endless parties, $100 Wagyu steaks, and robbing the country's coffers blind. They played the class warfare card and you fell for it. The Obamas are elitists and love hanging with the rich Washington socialites (check out the recent DrudgeReport artice on that).
How dare you talk special needs children that way?! What a disgusting, vile and evil thing to say! Take your foul language to some Obamabot blog - it is not welcome here. Moderators please!This is a free country and we can support whichever candidate we want to and we choose Sarah!
Joseph Russo:
Again I disagree with you. Her credentials as a one-term governor will not matter to SarahPAC donors, conservatives or most of the GOP if Sarah performs on the battlefield like Braveheart and leads her troops to a massive victory in Congress.
As to attracting independents and moderates raising over $700m through SarahPAC will have a lot to do with her success. Americans love a winner. Sarah will be perceived as a winner. But even for people fed up with Obama, Sarah will provide a refreshing alternative.
If Sarah was not a superstar I would agree with you. But Sarah is a superstar and as Michael Barone said a natural. Barone said there was no way that Sarah should have been able to give the speech that she did at the convention without adequate preparation and after having been raked over the coals by the MSM and he's been an asture observer of politics for over 30 years.
If Sarah loses to Obama it will not be bacause she has only served one term as governor of Alaska. Instead it will to come down to the staples of abortion, the economy, and national security and perhaps gun rights or energy development.
As a Sarah supporter, I want the good Governor to run for re-election as Governor.
1) It puts her way ahead of Romney and Huckabee, who will not have actually governed anything in years!
2) It seriously weakens the lack of experience argument.
3) It allows her more time to push through her energy reforms on nonrenewable and renewable resources and thus have an even stronger record of accomplishment.
Personally, I will be frustrated at her being tied to the state every Jan to April, but like it or not, the standards are different for Palin, they're light years tougher than they were/are for Obama, and she needs to have a looooonnnggg list of governing experiences to even get the time of day of the MSM.
And after the session, she has the rest of the year to visit the troops again every year, and to accept some of the international requests, etc.
Also speaking as a CT resident trying to fight the good uphill fight here, she really needs more street cred. I'm even dreaming that she might have a chance here. Why not dream big?! :)
Techno,
The variables you describe are certainly interesting to consider, and I enjoy reading your analyses. However, given the emotional roller coaster which seems part and parcel of ordinary barbarian experience because of the hopes for Gov Palin which we share, perhaps we should take time to just enjoy the moment. These poll numbers are good.
She is really in a catch 22. Best case scenario, She runs a lean campaign for re-election and wins in 2010 while campaigning for other candidates in the lower 48 (has to have a balancing act, since AK will not like her gone from the state a lot during the re-election campaign, but her numbers are so high there, it should be okay). She gets re-elected, then can probably make it until mid-2011, maybe 2 legislative sessions before announcing to run for POTUS in spring 2011.
She will have to rely heavily on her Lt Gov during a lot of this as she will be absent for periods of time. It is actually kind of analogous to when Bush ran in 2000, he was elected Gov in 1998, then once he started running, he turned much of the day-to-day gov duties over to Rick "Hair" Perry. The only difference, he was geographically in a better location and TX is not like the AK ankle biters.
This will be tough, but I think she has to run for re-election for credibility sake.
This is not fair, this is not right, but this is the way it is: because she is a Republcan, she will be held to a higher standard. She needs to run and win in 2010 to legitimize her standing as front runner in the eyes of the rank and file.
Period. Nobody respects a pol who ducks a fight.
Oh, and she needs to be at or near the George W. Bush re-elect numbers from 1998 in Texas.
Period.
davek:
I don't think she has the luxury of doing that - she will be pressed into comitting one way or another by her opponent. If she breaks her word, she's a flip flopper. If she says she's running, he opponent says she's just using Alaska as a stepping stone.
The political scene up there is so toxic post Troopergate, my thought is that she should take two years off to prepare for whatever is coming next.
Thank you, IAC. These are fantastic numbers.
We can speculate until we are blue in the face.
2010 comes before 2012. We need to focus on that.
JR is right. A two term governor is better than a one term governor. Sarah needs to focus on 2010.
Techno,
Sarah MUST run and win by a good margin a second term as governor of Alaska.
I understand your argument about freeing up her time, but once she has won a second term, she WILL get to spend more time in the lower 48 campaigning due to her NOT having to worry about a second term.
She needs to keep piling on the executive experience.
Given the zero experience of Obama and his terrible first 50+ days, the country will demand an experienced executive as POTUS, not a one-term governor.
She needs to win re-election to show she is still strong.
She can always resign if it becomes apparent that she must in order to campaign for POTUS.
Eliminate the experience argument and you just picked up 2 million mods/indies and the GOP that voted for Obama.
Many people who didn't vote for her and McCain actually like Sarah. They just thought she was not ready for POTUS yet. I'll ignore the fact that Obama had NO experience.
hrh:
I believe in living in the world of reality. It is what it is. Here are the known variables so far:
1)Barack Obama will be the Democrat Presidential standardbearer in 2012
2)Obama came into the Oval office WITHOUT ANY EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
3)Obama has started running for re-election On Nov.5/2008 and will never stop running for re-election
4)Obama raised $749m during the 2008 campaign and still is no reason to think he will not match that in 2012
5)Sarah Palin is a full-fledged superstar and as Nat Hound has suggested cannot be judged by the same criteria; her performance during the 2008 campaign saw to that;those who contribute to SarahPAC know what we witnessed; we saw Tiger Woods, Tom Brady, and Michael Jordan. Age or experience is not relevant. For example when Tiger Woods won all 4 majors in a row at the age of 25 did anybody think he was too young or too inexperienced to have done that? Finally Sarah has the potential to raise as much money as Obama but will only do so if she spends her time in the lower 48 appearing at fundraisers.
6)As I have stated earlier Sarah's future in Presidential politics will be dictated to whether how effective she is as battlefield commander to use leverage her time and SarahPAC money to orchestrate a massive GOP victory in the 2010 mid-terms or perhaps even take back one of the houses of Congress.
7)Sarah's credibility as one-term governor will only come into play if she cannot bring about this massive victory. In that case it will not matter anyway. Regardless she will lose to Obama if she runs.
Profile on "Team Palin" on the Fix...
Sapwolf:
I am not so concerned about the time that Sarah spends in Alaska after she is re-elected but what is vital to her future success as a Presidential candidate is she must be able to get more GOP conservatives or members elected to Congress in 2010 to stop Obama's socialist agenda in its track. That is the bottom line. If Sarah cannot perform as a battlefield leader and orchestrate substantial GOP gains then her primary opponents will make the argument in the fall of 2011 (and I believe relevant) that Sarah is not capable of beating Obama because she did not deliver in 2010; and thus she will be denied the nomination.
Spending time in Alaska campaigning for re-election only takes away time that she should be spending on the ground in the lower 48. Now if Sarah as davek70 suggests can 'perform the balancing act' I am open to be convinced, but it is my opinion because of prohibitive geography and the anklebiters in Alaska it will prove more difficult than Davek70 thinks to do what he suggests, but as I say I am open to be convinced by davek70 that Sarah could pull it off.
But again the bottom line for Sarah is the 2010 mid-term elections and not her own re-election.
I'm not sure where you live, techno, but I was surprised at one of your statements that "America already loves Sarah." They most assuredly do not here in CT. Or in most of the NE, I would guess.
Yes, I believe there is a "silent majority," well, maybe not a majority, but more than are brave enough to vocalize right now. But my commute involves about 25 miles along I-95, which means I spend 50 miles a day on this major thoroughfare, and I see TONS of Obama stickers, and no McCain (although I saw a Bush 04 yesterday!).
I understand bumper sticker math doth not a poll make, but I am very realistic as to the good gov's current standing in many blue states.
Re: media and Internet, I spend almost all my time on Fox or C-span and friendly Palin sites, but occasionally as a "wake up call," I flip over to CNN, MSNBC, the networks, or supposedly neutral websites, and the reality comes clear that the good Gov still has a ways to go to rehabilitate.
Most Americans do not pay attention to politics between elections so until the next big event happenss, all they know of Palin is the 08 election.
And all they'll know is what she does in the '10 election, both in her own race and down here in other candidate races. I don't think they'll take the favorable view if she isn't running in her own race.
I may be wrong, of course, but sadly, I don't think so. I'd love to be though. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I agree with Techno that Sarah doesn't have to run for re-election as Governor in order to run for President.
Nowadays the keys seem to be strong grassroots and volunteer support, lots and lots of money, good campaign organization, winning messages and effective media strategy (not necessarily in that order). Obama had everyone beat overwhelmingly in each of those categories and that is why he won (of course, the MSM love affair with Obama worked wonders too).
The 2008 campaign proved voters are not looking for experience as much as someone who the voters think can fix or solve the country's problems.
The top finishers from parties were the following:
-Obama had no real experience;
-Hillary had some but mostly as First Lady (Ark. & White House);
-Mccain has been a Senator for ages but has not accomplished much that is outstanding or notable (his legislation is awful often);
-Romney was a 1 term Governor with a mixed record (some say he did a poor job) and I have heard that he has engaged in questionable business practices although he is deemed a successful businessman (I'm sure when he runs the MSM will dig up all the dirt on Bain Capital and Salt Lake Olympics).
Obama won because most voters who went to the polls believed he had the best messages and ideas plus he was a historical candidate and he looked way cooler than anyone else running (except the 'Cuda!).
As Techno pointed out Sarah already has name recognition, will raise boatloads of money, and can generate the huge crowds. Those who will vote for Sarah do not care if she is Governor or not (in fact, it takes up too much of her time right now). Even if she wins a 2nd term, the MSM and critics will say "So what, Alaska is a rural, uncivilized state anyway."
Sarah can use SarahPAC to stay active in politics by getting involved in energy policy groups (like Newt), public think tanks, giving speeches, going to foreign countries, etc.
HRH, I wonder if anybody else has noticed this -- I'm in a blue city within a red state, and as such I've had to endure the sight of 0bama bumper stickers staring at me in traffic for months, I get incensed at each one, and have to fight the urge to ram the idiot in front of me.
All of a sudden I hardly see any at all, which is quite a striking change, as my blood pressure now stays normal when I'm out driving.
A friend in Atlanta said she'd noticed the same thing. Buyer's remorse, anyone?
hrh:
My entire argument is based on one huge factor: the ability of SarahPAC to raise at least $100m by Nov. 2010 to allow Sarah to directly influence and leverage that to get more conservatives elected to Congress and to get more GOP members elected overall. I apologize for not being clearer on this key point.
Now what do I base my projections on:
1)Obama's fundraising for 2008 in years 2004-2006 was $160m. Sarah I believe can match that or if she falls short will at least raise $100m.
By the way Sarah has 516,000 members on her facebook. If each gave $10/mo for the next 20 months that will give her $100m+ and that does not include the 67,000 members of Team Sarah and the tens of thousands of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
2)news reports that Steele is in trouble from criticizing Rush Limbaugh and news reports echo that Limbaugh's listeners although mainly small donors, have in the past contributed significantly to the RNC, but now by tens of thousands decided to only contribute exclusively to SarahPAC
3)the buzz on the internet about SarahPAC and its current fundraising since Limbaugh's CPAC speech
4)Sarah being invited to the Congressional dinner as the keynote speaker; do you really think that Sarah would have gotten this coveted spot if it were not for SarahPAC; most of the RNC leadership if truth be known hate her guts because she is a Reagan conservative.
5)hrh, take my word for this; I am a student of sports and politics and superstars never have the problem of popularity or attracting money to them. Sarah is a superstar. Money will pour into Sarah's coffers in millions as long as she does not bow out of the 2012 race. Why do think Obama fear Sarah so much. Sarah candidacy is the nightmare scenario for Obama.
Wow, BeanCounter, I hadn't noticed that. Now that I think about it, I s'pose there are fewer, but I know I saw some just yesterday (I telecommute on Tuesdays).
I hear the arguments that all you need is a good ground crew, but I guess I'm using myself as a test case. Being a born and bred skeptical New Englander, I want a substantive politician versus someone who makes a living going around talking on news shows, e.g., Gingerich, Huckabee, Romney, and not ACCOMPLISHING anything. Or as Sarah says "walking the walk and not just talking."
But I'm more than willing to be glad to know that not everyone is a skeptical New Englander and so not as hard to persuade!
I also am very uncomfortable comparing Sarah to Obama and plotting to have her follow in his path in ANY way. But I understand at least SOME of his operation was legit.
But I absolutely would not want her to mimic his "constantly running for office" MO. This is what I MOST dislike about politicians. We hire public servants to work for us - at least some of the time. And to focus for at least part of their term on actually governing.
I do not like professional politicians who spend all their time running for office. I think running full time for 2 years for a job that lasts 4 is outrageous in the extreme.
I guess I'm as naive as Sarah in this, but I'm new to being a political junkie, having just been brought in last fall by Sarah. I know she has to make some moves now, and forming the PAC was a good one, but I would be somewhat disappointed to see her run for Pres FT for 2 years.
hrh:
The beginning of the rehabilitaion of Sarah Palin began with Media Malpractice. Being re-elected with have virtually nothing to with effecting any further rehabilitation.
But what will rehabiltate Sarah much further is if she can orchestrate a huge GOP victory in the 2010 mid-terms through the use of SarahPac and her battlefield leadership. There is nothing like success for anybody to be seen in a different light.
Phil Mickelson was considered a chronic loser until he won the Masters in 2004 and two other subsequent majors. Public perception can turn around on the turn of a dime.
In my post above I forgot to mention Mike Huckabee as a top finisher in the 2008 election.
Even though, Huckabee served 2 terms as Governor of Ark., I think he was successful in the primaries because of his personality (people like him and he seems down to earth and funny oftentimes that's why he has a FOX tv show now), his debating skills and stage presence, and his populist messages. I don't think people who voted for Huck cared much about his executive experience.
If you remember, Huckabee didn't have much money or volunteers so it is amazing he did as well as he did. Both he and McCain were not good at fundraising but connected with enough people to put them at the top.
I think the MSM uses "experience" as a club against the candidates that they don't support (look at how they treated Obama's experience vs. Hillary's/McCain's/Palin's experience).
The whole idea is that the United States made a mistake elected an inexperienced senator with no executive experience to the Presidency
The American voters will not vote for a 49 year old one term governor
and that is just reality
Our posts are crossing I think, techno. I have visions of us sitting here simultaneously furiously typing. :)
BTW, this just came over the Google (gag) alerts and may be of mucho interest to you who are saying the good Gov needs to get a better crew in place. Even the article's headline says so: "The Protectors of the Palin Brand"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/03/palins_team.html?wprss=thefix
I think the article is actually pretty fair. I appreciate that they are not calling her incompetent but saying that the people around her need to be better organized.
I admit as a political novice, I find these flubs mildly endearing and further proof that she is a "Washington outsider" and not a slick, conniving politico.
But I also fully realize that they need to get these kinks worked out NOW because the political big whigs and the media will jump all over them and her if they continue going forward.
I'd appreciate analysis of this article from any of you who know politics. Is it accurate or off base politically?
hrh:
I do not consider you a political novice at all, but if there is one piece of info that I always summon up to determine what is currently happening on the political landscape it is 'follow the money'.
As I said on the other thread Sarah has three things in spades: charisma, popularity as a Reagan conservative and the ability to raise boatloads of money. Politicians would die to have 2 out of 3-Sarah exudes all of these qualities.
That is why I have no compunction to claim that Sarah can match Obama in fundraising during the entire 2012 campaign. Attracting huge crowds and political momentum will be no problem. As a Reagan conservative Rush's 22m+ listeners may en masse support Sarah.
Sarah is Obama's worse nightmare. Right now he is trying to take her out. He has to stop her before she picks up steam and becomes unstoppable.
Joseph Russo:
Your points are well taken but I think the candidate who can articulate the ideas that resonate with the public and will motivate voters to the polls will win regardless of executive experience. You have also have to run a good media campaign (ads, interviews, speeches, public rallies, internet, etc.).
John Kennedy had less experience than Richard Nixon. When Jimmy Carter won (he was a 1 term governor) he beat Ford who was president. Clinton was less experienced than Bush I. Al Gore who was VP for 2 terms (8 years) had way more experience than Bush II.
Hillary, Obama, and McCain had little executive experience combined. Those were the 3 finalists from parties who could have won the presidency in 2008.
There are many factors involved as to why voters choose a candidate sometimes the candidate is simply more likable (you'd like to have a beer with him/her). Experience is important but not enough to win elections for you.
Sarah can win in 2012 if she can show the public that the MSM's negative portrayal of her was wrong and a bunch of lies. If she can do that and articulate winning ideas, I think she could win.
Alaska is more than a place...Its a state of mind.
-Alaska isn't just Sarah's home...its her sanctuary and place to re-charge her spirit.She just radiates whenever she talks about Alaska,doesn't she?...We who live in Alaska know that look too well.
-Her destiny may be as POTUS in DC.But her soul will always be in Alaska.
-I can't see Sarah pursuing any other path other than seeking a 2nd term as governor.She's dealt with the 'ankle-biters' here all her life and they've just toughened her.
-No one should under-estimate how crucial Sarah's Alaskan roots are.
Alaska's geographic isolation is a blessing for her.I know she breaths a sigh of relief whenever she returns here.Its enough right now just to stay a little under the political radar;Especially with so much of GOP being in dis-array.
-"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" applies to Sarah.Every rumor of a lower 48 appearance re-ignites interest and builds on the mystique and the legend.
-And I'm just being selfish also.Sarah's 'one of us'-And we miss her up here when she's away.
Techno and others,
I see your point about Alaska being a geographical problem for Sarah. You make many great points. I can tell you are really knowledgable in politics. Me, not so much. Still, I think she needs to be a two term gov.
Many have stated that Obama won with no experience, but what you forget is so many people were caught up in the Kool Aid drinking weird anti-Christ worship that they BELIEVED he had experience. The Rep. never drove home the point of his zero experience, so the American people as a whole thought he was experienced.
Still, I can see it being an almost impossible thing for Sarah to run in 2010 and keep all the complainers happy in Alaska. I think she has to try though.
Really I think the congressional races will take care of themselves so to speak. The polls are going south on Obama and people ARE waking up from their Kool Aid drunk slowly. I think that it will be a 1996 in Congress again with the Rep winning control of at least one house. I feel this is why Obama is craming all this Socialist crap down our throats. He KNOWS he only has two years before he loses Congress. Sarah can campaign a bit in the lower 48 and offer money to candidates who are in tight races while doing her own thing in Alaska.
Plus I think she WANTS to be Gov. again. She loves her state and I think she wants to finish part of what she started. Plus, if she loses in 2012 she can have the rest of her term as Gov.
Of course its not like I have ever met her to know what she is thinking. I just think being a woman and all she needs the authority with the independent voters of being a sitting gov. I think many independent voters are not impresseed with winning just one term as Gov. and would see her loss in '08 as a "can't win but one big one thing."
I am a huge Sarah fan. I have never cared that much for politics but have always voted Rep. She has inspired me to be more involved. I am from Bush country and could write a book on that. It excites me to have not only a woman who could be Pres. but a CONSERVATIVE woman, WOW!!
techno, et al.
Wow, it seems that the topic of running for a second term in 2010 is becoming a daily debate! I don't know if the issue is moving towards resolution, but it makes for good reading.
Anyway, my observation is that many voters vote for the person and not their accomplishments. For those voters Sarah should be a good choice in that she is very inspiring - Reaganesque, if you will.
Many voters also factor accomplishments into their decision, but now we come to different strokes for different folks... My guess is that hard core political junkies would be more impressed with things like fund raising and helping to win congressional seats, and most political junkies are already going to be committed to a party.
So it comes down to the "swing" voters again. IMHO they might be more impressed by her being elected to a second term since Alaskans thought she did a good job the first time. It would also support the idea that she really is a humble servant doing her best for her constituents.
I also agree with techno that a second term would limit her ability to campaign in the lower 48, and it would give the ankle biters lots of ammo.
I think JR's 2:25 post makes a great point, but so does 'sarah palin rocks' @ 2:48, although I think voters often vote against the thing they liked least about the last guy. I'm pretty sure that will turn out to be experience, judgment, and/or following through on campaign promises. A record of executive experience and governing true to your word might just be the winning ticket.
Maybe it comes down to the fact that we should trust Sarah's instincts, like many of us wanted the McCain campaign to do.
lipstick:
I beg to diaagree with you. The congressional races will NOT take care of themselves. Even with the Messiah presumedly down in popularity at the time he will still have boatlaoads of money to spread around; and don't forget about ACORN. And finally remember Obama is already running for re-election in 2012. He doesn't care about the perception that he should be in the White House doing his job. He will be active on he campaign trail.
For the GOP to make substantial gains to stop Obama's socialist agenda from being further implemented you need three things to counter Obama:
1)millions of volunteers that would sign up just at the mention of Sarah's name
2) SarahPAC money to compete directly with Obama's tens of millions
3)Sarah's presence on the ground; consider it like fighting for the heavyweight championship of the world--one-on-one--winner take all. IMHO, Sarah cannot abstain from this contest but she must perform as a battleground leader leading the millions of volunteers and fired up candidates into battle and I believe she can only do that if she is not burdened by having to campaign for re-election. Of course my argument is predicated on the argument that Sarah wants to run for POTUS in 2012 and that she can raise tens of millions of dollars. Of the latter I am certain; of the former I live in hope.
Techno,
You are right. Obama will not be worried about being in the White House any more than he was about being in the Senate. He has Poloski (SP) to run his Socialist agenda through congress. That frees him up to walk on water and stuff. We all know the MSM will not be reporting anything negative about how much time he spends away from Washington.
Perhaps you can convince me that Sarah might not be best served with a second term.
Sarah professes to pray for God to guide her, her life is in His hands, open doors for her, let her not miss the open door ect. Perhaps her faith will guide her to decide if she should run for Pres. or being a major player in other ways to put a REP of her chosing in the White House.
I hope she surrounds herself with capable advisors to give her good counsel. With that and her faith to guide her she will decide well if she should run in 2010.
I pray she runs for Pres. I would do everything I could to support her although I live in a Red state that did not go for Obama.
A little late to the discussion here, but it would appear that these numbers from Hayes UNDERSTATE Sarah's popularity, as their sampling methodology seems to systemically over represent Democrats in Alaska.
I determined this by going back to the poll they did on Nov. 2,and compared it to actual results two days later. They used the same telephone methodology in this survey - 400 telephone interviews with an error of +/- 4.9%. Here are the results of that poll, with actual election results in brackets:
President:
McCain (R)_____48 (59)
Obama (D)______45 (38)
Other/Undec.____7 (3)
Senate:
Stevens (R)____42 (47)
Begich (D)_____49 (48)
other/Undec.____9 (5)
House:
Young (R)______43 (50)
Berkowitz (D)__49 (45)
Other/Undec.____8 (5)
This analysis shows their sampling methodology overstates Democratic support by about 7 points. Therefore, Sarah's popularity numbers are probably at the HIGH end of the margin of error, or 5 points MORE than stated.
Therefore her popularity is probably in the high 60s - not the low 60s.
I hate these kind of questions.
"Do you like her, or do you REALLY like her?"
"Do you hate her, or do you hate her with the PASSION OF EIGHT BURNING SUNS?!?!"
Shut up, you ass.
lipstick:
I know the conventional wisdom is for Sarah to run for re-election and then turn her attention on governing Alaska for a year before turning her attention to the primaries in 2011.
Let me tell you why I do not believe that would be a sound strategy if she intends to run for POTUS in 2012:
1)Again my main focus: Sarah must establish her credibility as a leader and that she can do in spades through leveraging a tremendous GOP victory in 2010; consider the mid-terms like the regular season in football; if she does well here she gets to move into the playoffs and with mega-momentum; if she lays an egg in the mid-terms she may go into the playoffs but without any momentum (in political terms voter enthusiasm, buzz and money).
2)In conjunction to beat Obama in 2012, Sarah needs an army behind her which SarahPAC money will provide; as you might know its mission statement says: "It will help candidates who agree with Gov. Palin's ideas." Imagine a GOP 100+ army made up of Congressmen and Senators totally committed to Sarah as she moves into the primary season. She would almost be assured the nomination. However if she runs for re-election she risks not devoting enough time to effecting the results that she wants. And as I have mentioned in another post Sarah must match Obama: money, volunteers and her presence on the ground.
3) To win in 2012 I firmly believe that Sarah must clear the field of potential GOP opponents. By orchestrating a tremendous success in the mid-terms and having her chosen candidates boost her credentials as Chambliss did when Sarah turned a narrow 4 point win into an overwhelming 14 point rout in the Senate run-off in Georgia.
By clearing the field and winning the nomination in January or February 2012 Sarah will have plenty of time to unite the party, have the party's bigwigs coalesce around Sarah's team, put her campaign organization in place, pick a VP and tailor her message to compete against the Messiah. Overlooked in a lot commentary on the 2012 election is that the GOP knows who they will be going up against (Obama). That's like a team before the regular season knowing who its opponent will be when they make the Super Bowl. That is a tremendous advantage to have.
4)And finally once Sarah is able to secure the nomination she will be on her way to matching whatever the Messiah can raise in fundraising and volunteers and even as important match him in charisma, campaign speechmaking, and debate dexterity.
5) it will be a fight to the finish--a heavyweight championship fight down to the wire--will Sarah prevail? I don't know, but she stands one hell of a chance as far as I'm concerned.
Everyone here is raising such excellent points that Sarah and her advisers will have to take under serious consideration.
I know Sarah lives and breathes Alaska for that is where her heart is. However, since last year the atmosphere there has gotten quite "toxic" as one poster put it. Luckily, she was largely unscathed by Troopergate but many people still believe the first bogus report that she violated state ethics laws. I see people posting that online at different sites to this day. And I believe the state legislature filed contempt charges against Todd and some of Sarah's staffers recently.
Also, it seems that every week someone up in Alaska is making trouble for her (complaints about her travel and per diem allowances, brouhaha over Alfafa dinner, native villages crisis manufactured scandal, etc.). Now they are critiizing Sarah on the Trans Canada natural gas pipeline deal. It never ends!
Sarah is a great fighter but it will take a lot out of her to fight the venomous hordes in Alaska, the MSM ghouls, the RINO traitors in her own party and the Obama/Dem machine plus raise her family. Again, I agree with Techno, she can't serve 2 masters in an environment like this.
Besides, any move she makes as Governor will be twisted by her opponents to be used against her. She needs to get away from Alaskan politics for awhile. I know she is planning on running for 2012 now. I read the Chris Cilizza/Fix piece that talked about her team of advisers including Greta's husband, John Coale. So I hope Sarah's focus should be on her 2012run when her governorship ends.
Sarah is one of the most famous people in the world now. Time Magazine (as liberal biased as it is) picked her as one of the 4 most influential persons of 2008 (out of everyone in the world). She has enough experience to win but she has to increase her favorability with the public and articulate her vision and ideas.
Remember, like Mitt Romney who was a 1 term governor, Sarah can still gain additional executive experience in the business world and in public policy advocacy organizations and also through her PAC (which is what Mitt did and he is a strong contender for President).
Toki, ah Josef
We all know that when you were the glorious leader of the Soviet Union you enjoyed very high approval ratings that even reached the 456% mark!
Well what can I say, JR? The ordinary people just loved me.
God* help them if they didn't. lol :)
*There is no God, but ME!
sarah palin rocks:
Thanks for reminding me: that's one key point I did not address. Once Sarah orchestrates a landslide GOP win and without a job to go to after Dec. 4/2010 Sarah will then be able to turn her full undivided attention of gaining more knowledge, developing a kitchen cabinet, work on her policy positions, give speeches, write a book, do the media rounds in the lower 48, whatever. And the key to her being able to do this besides not having a job to occupy her time is that SarahPAC will see that she doesn't need a regular paycheck to survive.
Then by the time primary season rolls around in the fall of 2011 she will be fully prepared physically and mentally to do battle on the national stage, and not have to be worried about the anklebiters back home.
I can tell you this, when the RNC called my house the day Rush/Steele happened, I told the caller in no uncertain terms that my political donations were going to SarahPAC until further notice. I even told him to write it down and put it in Michael Steele's inbox.
It seems to me, there is no halfway for Sarah. If she runs for a second term as governor, she is committing to being Alaska-centric for the next 4+ years. The 'biters and her constituents will demand that she live up to that promise. (And I think Sarah is wired to keep promises at virtually all costs.)
However, as 1994 shows, the winning play in a mid-term against a floundering first-term president is to "nationalize" the election. Newt was the face in 1994 with a big help from the Contract with America. Sarah could do the same thing if she wanted for the 2010 midterms, but she can't be governor and do that at the same time. Taking on Obama/Pelosi/Reid is a full-time job.
Taking the lead in the mid-terms would his would do a couple things for Sarah. It would effectively end the 2012 primaries if she delivers one or both houses of Congress. It would be a free trial run for the 2012 general campaign. She would build up a ton of favors she could use in or out of office. It would be a shot across the bow of Obama. She doesn't have to formally announce or anything like that, but the message will be sent loud and clear. And any election, but especially presidential off-year elections, turnout is key. Sarah has all the potential to be a turnout-creating machine.
I think the most important reason to get her out of Juneau is that she can't afford another Troopergate and her enemies will be looking to create something even if it doesn't exist. She needs to be freed from the chains Alaska politics puts on her. She's the only governor in the nation who needs a hall pass to leave the state!
I guess the bottom line is that Sarah has a choice to make and it has to be made sooner rather than later. Alaska vs. America. I tend to think the nation needs Sarah on the scene as soon as possible, but we all know that in the finest tradition of federalism, Sarah considers herself an Alaskan, I don't want to say first and foremost, but you know what I mean.
What did Yoda say in Empire? Do or Do Not. That's what Sarah is faced with...
By the way speaking of the 2010 midterms Rasmussen just came out with the Generic Congressional Ballot:
Republican: 41%
Democrat: 38%
3500 likely voters March9-15
Tremendous news!
Sorry for my late (and temporary) arrival to the discussion here. Having read through most of it both sides make good points. I come down narrowly on the side of her running for re-election; maybe 60% for running for re-election vs. 40% for not running for re-election. I will not rehash the arguments pro and con. One big argument against her running that I haven't seen here yet (if somebody made this point, sorry, I didn't see it) is Mitt Romney. I can't recall anyone using the fact that Romney is a one-term governor against him. Of course he does have a lot of other executive experience.
As stated above, I come down narrowly on the side of her running for re-election for many of the reasons stated by Joseph Russo (JR) and others. I do think her popularity numbers in Alaska are important. She works for Alaskans and they like the job she is doing. That is not insignificant. I think it also allows her some wiggle room in 2010. Of course her opponents in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign will try to use her potential run for POTUS in 2012 against her. But given her popularity is still so high (despite the orchestrated effort by Obama and the useful idiots in Alaska to tear her down), she can demure a bit on that question in the 2010 re-election campaign. I can envision her saying something similar to what she has said before. Paraphrasing here, she said she will “always do what is in Alaska’s best interest”. This is something she can use for wiggle room.
If, by some fluke, Obama is popular in mid 2011, she can wait for 2016. Remember, all presidential elections in which an incumbent is running is a referendum on the incumbent. It’s never about the challenger. If she doesn’t run for re-election, she will almost be obligated to run against Obama in 2012 even if he’s popular (unlikely but not impossible). If she runs against a popular incumbent in 2012 and loses, she will never be president. If, as we all suspect, Obama has Jimmy Carter popularity numbers in 2011, she can tell her Alaskan constituents that Obama stands in the way of Alaska’s best interests and the only way to advance the interests of Alaskans (and the country as a whole) is to kick Obama out and replace him in the White House. I think Alaskans (excluding the ankle biters) will understand this. So as much as anything I think she needs to run for re-election as a simple matter of keeping her options open. If the Messiah is popular in 2011, continue as governor, if he isn’t she can boot hiss out in 2012. Just my humble opinion.
DB
Reposting above comments due to spelling errors...
Sorry for my late (and temporary) arrival to the discussion here. Having read through most of it both sides make good points. I come down narrowly on the side of her running for re-election; maybe 60% for running for re-election vs. 40% for not running for re-election. I will not rehash the arguments pro and con. One big argument against her running that I haven't seen here yet (if somebody made this point, sorry, I didn't see it) is Mitt Romney. I can't recall anyone using the fact that Romney is a one-term governor against him. Of course he does have a lot of other executive experience.
As stated above, I come down narrowly on the side of her running for re-election for many of the reasons stated by Joseph Russo (JR) and others. I do think her popularity numbers in Alaska are important. She works for Alaskans and they like the job she is doing. That is not insignificant. I think it also allows her some wiggle room in 2010. Of course her opponents in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign will try to use her potential run for POTUS in 2012 against her. But given her popularity is still so high (despite the orchestrated effort by Obama and the useful idiots in Alaska to tear her down), she can demure a bit on that question in the 2010 re-election campaign. I can envision her saying something similar to what she has said before. Paraphrasing here, she said she will “always do what is in Alaska’s best interest”. This is something she can use for wiggle room.
If, by some fluke, Obama is popular in mid 2011, she can wait for 2016. Remember, all presidential elections in which an incumbent is running is a referendum on the incumbent. It’s never about the challenger. If she doesn’t run for re-election, she will almost be obligated to run against Obama in 2012 even if he’s popular (unlikely but not impossible). If she runs against a popular incumbent in 2012 and loses, she will never be president. If, as we all suspect, Obama has Jimmy Carter popularity numbers in 2011, she can tell her Alaskan constituents that Obama stands in the way of Alaska’s best interests and the only way to advance the interests of Alaskans (and the country as a whole) is to kick Obama out and replace him in the White House. I think Alaskans (excluding the ankle biters) will understand this. So as much as anything I think she needs to run for re-election as a simple matter of keeping her options open. If the Messiah is popular in 2011, continue as governor, if he isn’t she can boot his ass out in 2012. Just my humble opinion.
DB
Techno, those new Rasmussen numbers are fantastic! What is the chance that the MSM will report them?
Nat Hound:
I could not have said it any better. I agree with you 100%.
NB: especially about mid-term election turnout being lower and Sarah being able to give that a tremednous boost. That is huge!
Nat Hound said "It seems to me, there is no halfway for Sarah. If she runs for a second term as governor, she is committing to being Alaska-centric for the next 4+ years. The 'biters and her constituents will demand that she live up to that promise."
As one of her constituents, I don't feel that way at all. I think if she runs for re-election she should be up front with us and say that she hasn't ruled out running for the POTUS, but I don't think many of us would begrudge having our President hail from Alaska. And that may be the only way to get ANWR opened.
What say other Alaskans on C4P?
Doug B:
CNN never reports Rasmussen but Fox News I think does.
AK Mermaid,
It would be interesting to hear an Alaskan perspective on today's poll result. Do you see it as a relatively reliable indication of SP's popularity?
on the generic ballot should be:
Republicans: 41%
Democrats: 39%
This generic ballot news is very good. It shows how fast this administration is floundering. I knew Obama would be terrible, but even I did not think he would screw things up this fast.
I see a repeat of 1994 coming. If the GOP wins in 2010, many will say Obama will become more like Clinton. Won't happen. For all his faults, Clinton really was more moderate and pragmatic than people give him credit for. Obama is not and he will not change his Marxist ways. This, coupled with Palin on the '12 ticket (instead of lame Bob Dole in '96) means GOP victory in 2012!!
BTW, I know I keep asking, but when are we going to get that stinkin press release from SarahPAC about that fundraiser???
According to Fox News the actress Natasha Richardson was just taken off life support. She had suffered a brain injury from a skiing accident. She is 45, the same age as Sarah. May God be with her.
This again brings home to me the importance of striking while the iron is hot; you never know when the window of opportunity will close forever.
For those of you who look at Sarah as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in 2012, two years ago the NY Giants appeared in Super Bowl XlII against the undefeated NE Patriots; the majority of pundits thought the Giants were also 'sacrifical lambs'. As you might remember the Giants beat the Patriots 17-14.
Again, I'm sorry to hear about Natasha.
davek70:
Could Sarah Palin's be 2010's version of Newt Gingrich and could she come out with Contract With America II?
This blog post is from Matt Lewis at townhall.com:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/703e5611-dbe5-45ae-aa67-150e43e3ba6c
"Remember yesterday how the big news was that, despite her failure to appear at CPAC, Sarah Palin would be headlining the big annual fundraiser for GOP congressional re-election efforts??
... Turns out there was some confusion between Palin's Alaska staff and the DC-based SarahPac.
Either way, this does little to reassure those who have concerns over Palin's leadership and organizational competency.
Under normal conditions, a snafu such as this would be a minor story. But in the case of Palin, it is merely the latest example of a sloppy mistake.
Why is it that with Palin, something always seems to go wrong???"
In my opinion, the entire agenda of this post is to try paint Sarah as unorganized, unaware, and incompetent. Notice how he starts out by saying Sarah failed to show up at CPAC. Then he declares this incident as just the latest example of sloppy mistakes. Cleary he's just trying to further the negative MSM narrative of Sarah, regardless of the facts.
Sorry, I meant to post that in the open thread.
Lewis is a former boss of Adam Brickley founder of Draft Palin for Vice-President. He usually is pretty fair. This is definitely an aberration, but also a sign that Sarah's opponents know the score and will be on the prowl waiting for any reason to attack Sarah for any reason.
ugafish:
I am a staunch Sarah defender and big supporter, but this fundraiser crap is really getting on my nerves. I don't like the tone of the Townhall post, the content is correct. All they had to do today is issue a release from the PAC saying she's coming and it would be over. What are they waiting for? Maybe behind the scenes everything is cool with the NRCC and SarahPAC, but the media needs something official to put out the brush fire.
Techno, I was wondering about the Newt role as well. I would actually like to see someone in congress step up in the "Newt" role w/ Sarah riding shotgun readying for '12. Question is, who is this person?? There are a few I like in the House right now, but there is clearly no one obvious right now. Maybe Mike Pence?? I have soured on Cantor since his lame appearance on Steffy's show a few weeks back. Maybe Paul Ryan, but he's a bit young... I don't know.
BTW, I've lost track of what thread we are in, so apologies...
Yes techno, Sarah should strike while the iron is hot! By 2016 the establishment forces aligned against her may fix it so she is an also ran. We will wait and see what she does. I trust Sarah's political instincts.
She lost in the Lt. Governor race but came back in the Governor's race vs. an incumbent. What are the odds of that? Maybe history will repeat itself on the national level!
In a way, it is a good thing that this fundraiser miscommunication gaffe is getting press. The Romneybots are already running with this to show Sarah is incompetent or just dumb. This will make Sarah and her team realize that SarahPAC has to get its act together (hire more staffers too). Sarah will also have to decide how best to handle being Governor and heading SarahPAC at the same time.
Techno - one other reason Sarah shouldn't run for re-election is she will have a hard time conducting SarahPAC business in her governor's office (those ankle-biters are waiting in the wings to file complaints - she has a hard now even with interviews).
She is going to have to delegate more of her governor duties to Lt. Gov. Parnell and her other assistants. Wouldn't it be cool if Sarah endorsed Parnell to run in 2010 (I think they have a very good relationship)?
we had this problem with the fair Carol Platt Liebau, also of Town Hall, we should politely correct
his misimpressions. If this is who you say, he was the one who was trying to set up a debate viewing
party with Jane Mayer, that worked
as well you think it would. Because
of the CPAC experience, I wondered
whether it had been confirmed, apparently it was not. Regardless, it does make her look bad, why couldn't they just text or email each other, give a heads up.
Mudflats already has the poll up,along with her polls from previous months/years.They show that her approval rating in Alaska is going down steadily.
mommom,
Do you have a link to that? I believe the poll people were discussing today was that she is still at 64%, the highest of any Gov in the country.
sarah palin rocks:
As with Nat Hound I agree with you 100%.
especially re: Sarah dealing with SarahPAC out of the Governor's office and the anklebiters
I was wondering why I hadn't received my brackets to enter the "Win Dinner With Sarah" (and 2,500 other people) contest.
If she didn't have Alaska's insane ethics laws to deal with, it would be a simple matter of telling the NRCC what time to send the car over to National and whether she wants to stay at the JW or the Hay-Adams. Andree Mcleod and company add this whole other level of drama over what should be pretty straightforward dinner plans.
Exhibit 42 of why Sarah should not run for Governor in 2010.
davek70:
You made my point. The GOP Congress does not have the player roster to produce a Newt. That is why Sarah must take on the leadership role herself and lead the troops into battle full of volunteers and SarahPAC money.
Great discussion. What are the chances that Gov Palin is trying to create a deeper bench in the AK assembly and senate for her conservatism and servant's heart service? How many of these AK ankle-biting politicians are up for re-election in '09 or '10? Could she run for re-election and bring a slate of Pubs/Dems/Inds along for the ride, thanks to her PAC $$$ (a virtual 3rd party)? Could this finally clear the AK political world of backroom deals? If this works, she has a strong foundation in AK, with people who would understand if she was called to save the US from Obama/Pelsoi/Reid in 2012, and sets the state on a great future for corruption-free access to oil and gas and other ventures.
techno:
I also think a governor has to lead the way. The GOP's congressional approval, overall, is still way down there. Ras' news today shouldn't be taken as "America loves the GOP again."
It's more like "America is starting to hate the Dems again..."
Nat Hound:
Especially when the leadership in Congress is lacking. You hate to admit it, but it is what it is.
Hi mommom,
Every poll I have seen out of Alaska since Nov. 4 shows Gov. Palin in the 61-65% favorable ranges. Most polls usually are more favorable to Democrats. I would say that Sarah is around 66%. She was not going to maintain her 80-83% one that she had. If re-election was right now she would get 57-60%.
Palin's approval rating of 80% was never going to last
Similar to Bush's approval rating after 9/11, it was near 90%
in both cases, the rating was artificially high
However, unlike Bush ... Palin has the ability to hold up against the media smears and attacks
hahahahaha
I give Mudflats a B+ for effort....
But Mudflats cannot ignore the fact that since the last poll conducted by Hays Research Group, Palin's favorability has dropped by a grand total of 2 points and her unfavorables have gone up 1 point.
That Dittman Anchorage poll was actually better than this poll because it was a "re-elect" question poll, rather than a favorable/unfavorable poll.
Bottom line, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Alaskans have a favorable opinion of the governor. It took two years for her to slip from an outrageous high to an incredibly high number given the economic circumstances facing governors.
It took Obama two months to slip from a very impressive approval rating initially to slip to a pedestrian approval number when compared to other presidents.
I'll present the data on how other governors are holding up under the circumstances and then compare it to 'Cuda's numbers.
Mudflats should read the polling stuff here, they may learn something.
Nat Hound said:
"It seems to me, there is no halfway for Sarah. If she runs for a second term as governor, she is committing to being Alaska-centric for the next 4+ years. The 'biters and her constituents will demand that she live up to that promise. (And I think Sarah is wired to keep promises at virtually all costs.)"
That's the key point. I think it has to be one or the other...run for re-election or go for the whole thing in 2012.
Sarah has a decision to make and she has about 9-10 months to make it.
Al:
The only thing that I might disagree with you is that Sarah could wait till early spring 2010 to make a decision.
Remember her poll numbers are excellent. Nobody is going to primary-challenge her.
All she has to do if she doesn't run for re-election is to free herself up in the late spring to early summer to land in the lower 48 and hit it hard from then till Nov. 2010.
Duplicate post... sorry, I'm lost on which thread most are following....
Allah has another post up at HA about RNC fundraising numbers most likely being down. He has suddenly switched back to Coleman. Weren't he and the trolls suggesting Palin be RNC chair yesterday?
Anyway, I once again told him all my $$ is going to SarahPAC until further notice.
Everyone go over and tell him the same.
Hot Air just posted a thread:
Gulp: RNC fundraising expected to be way off in February:
confirmation of the potency of SarahPAC my friends
but conveniently no mention of SarahPAC (story makes it appear that nobody else is getting right-of-center money)
It's also funny that whenever there is a posting about RNC fundraising, EVERYONE who says they're not giving to RNC is giving to SarahPAC. No mention of Mittens or Huckster or anyone else's PAC. That alone tells me something.
Someone reminded me over there that Steele is coming to AK this weekend. How many want a bet Steele is going to be on his hands and knees begging for Sarah to make up his shortfalls?
Ahhh.... aint life great?
Mudflats are the Alaskan Kos, with less of a track record, I've been there once or twice, and had a strong temptation to wash off the muck. That other stalker blogger, spends her day concocting more and
more byzantine theories; most recently the evangelical end times theory, Greg Stilson in high heels; she's a troll on a lot of the pro Palin blogs
Now AP at Hot Air has up the obligatory thread of Palin not agrreing to keynote fundraiser yet
AP's love to the Cuda!
I'm shocked that Hot Air would take that tack, but the folks at M4M would know that already
Coleman is a nice guy, but he was handicapped by the ineptness of Mr. excitement Tim Pawlenty, and of course, Secretary of State Guthrie. Yet Michele Bachman survived a much stronger channel.
One forgets that Coleman actually won the race, than the 'instant ballots' that materialized.
Look one of the things that we like about Sarah, is that she follows through on her projects unlike the image painting by Portfolio. Hence she has to run again, it's too important for the state to be abandoned to those jackals for two years. I think she can hold off campaigning till later in 2011, the people in Iowa and New Hampshire, are going to get
swept off their feet by Mitt, (I know those at M4M, are surprised at that,)or Pawlenty or god help us Huckabee, not going to happen.
Sarah Pac is a strategic tool to cement alliances, not unlike Emily's list on the other side. That's just my opinion
Over at FR there is a link to a ADN story about the dinner. Miss Meg is quoted.
The upshot is a decision about the dinner will be made at the AK leguslative session ends.
It should be remembered AK is 4 hour behind the east coast. Those 4 hours do make a differance when these things come up.
hahaha, I usually don't do it but I've been perusing the comments section of the ADN blog post for some comedy....here are the typical responses:
1) Attack the pollster: it would be one thing if Hays was an outlier but Hulen points out that Kos and Ivan Moore found the same result in the very blog post, ahhaha.
2) Nobody I know likes Palin: Really? Well, I know very few people who like Obama, does that mean nobody in America likes Obama? We tend to associate with people with similar views (see, e.g., Obama/Ayers, Obama/Wright), so to draw a conclusion on how people generally think about an issue based on what people around you think is pretty darn stupid, ahhaha
3) The trends are going downward: this one is the best, the trends haven't moved since October 2008, they've pretty much stayed in the low 60s at a time when other governors are taking huge hits to their favorables. Palin's numbers were supposed to fall when oil prices fell, after Colberg, after per diem, after Emmoniak, after this, after that...hahahah, nothing gives me greater delight than watching polling amateurs start moaning when don't get the polling result they like.
Anonymous is TommyReport of course...I am curious as to why Hays underpolled McCain/Palin so badly on November 4th. Dittman, Moore, and Rasmussen did as well (Kos/Research 2000 came the closest for the presidential race in AK) but not to the crazy extent as Hays.
narciso:
The problem lies in the mid-term elections. Can Sarah devote enough time to the lower 48 when campaigning for re-election? I don't think so because of geographical barriers.
And look at what they are doing to her now: keeping her a virtual prisoner in her own state with all those anklebiters up there.
Then there is the question of competing with the Messiah. he's going be raking in the moolah while Sarah is up in Alaska imprisoned by her own legislature in 2011.
Narciso, that's the whole point. Sarah cannot hold off campaigning till fall 2011. You forget who she will be up against: a man who started his re-election campaign on Nov. 5/2008; he is running a perpetual campaign; he will be on the stump throughout 2011. Sarah cannot afford to be idle. Even if she won the nomination, under these circumstances the Messiah would slaughter her. From afar I care for her too much to see that happen.
That's why she should not run for re-election but instead devote herself in helping the GOP win back Congress and then study up, consult with her kitchen cabinet, read policy papers, conduct many fundraisers in the lower 48, do the media rounds and by fall 2011 she'll be battle-tested for the primaries all the while fanning the flames on behalf of SarahPAC.
Then she'll make quick work of the nomination in early January 2012 because she will have raised $300m-$400m by then and finally it will be a fight to the finish against the Messiah.
How did I end up signing up for this, Obama's always been
campaigning, he was campaigning in the fall of '05 at the USF recruiting students, he never did his Senate job, never showed up for his Senate subcommitee in Afghanistan, consequently was ill informed only slightly less than Joe Biden on the subject, He won,
but that experience gap, really does show up now.
People want to say the pipeline is dead, but that's terribly shortsided, it needs to go on, and she's the driving force behind it.
Can Sean Scannell really shepherd it to completion with all these jackals. More to the point, could he win the seat, vacated by her.
Another Hollis French or Bob Poe or even Tony Knowles will set the state back a decade or more. She has served as an example, because
of the application of her principles. I too wouldn't want her hurt, I'm probably too close to this issue, this is the first
political contribution I've ever made in my life, and I'm kind of tapped out right about now, specially.
Comrade Toki. How gracious of you to make an appearance, unlike that running dog Mao.
As for live politicians, I don't give a rat's arse about anything in Alaska at this point. Duh1 has the U.S. circling the bowl faster every day, and we've got no time to lose.
Sarah's the only one that can compete with him and beat him at his own game. He'll be lucky to have an approval rating of 5% by 2011.
She had more experience as mayor than the poseur-in-chief does now. I know all I need to know about her. She's Reagan in a skirt, period. That's good enough for me.
We need Sarah now. We need her desperately. When some of you say she should wait till 2016, I get queasy. You act as if we have some generally competent person in the WH instead of the Marxist in Chief. Do you know how much additional damage Barry Carter could do by 2016? Think we'll still be using dollars? Think we'll have an ally left in the world? Think we'll be part of the U.N.'s one-world rule? Think domestic terrorism will be non-existent?
I stumbled on a holy roller radio station today and the guy was all about the O. Whoever this guy was, he was reading from the Libtard agenda, and none of it was good.
Remember, Obi-wan's going to decide our consciences next with the abortion provider bill.
Revamping internet content/access is high on the list. This is the last free, mass communication we've got going. The "free" part bothers the collectivists as much as the accessibility. He needs revenue and wants control. Obozo is going to be all over this -- fast.
When Sarah's term is done, I'd hope she'd get big money for writing a book, that she'd campaign hard for her brethern and sistern, and get to know lots of folks in the lower 48 -- like Reagan did before he was elected.
She'll only have 8 years (the re-election will be a landslide) to undo the unholy mess the Messiah has mired us in. She's got to go for POTUS in '12.
Post a Comment