Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Governor Palin forms a political action committee

2»

Comments

  • Vato26Vato26 Member Posts: 3,930
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    <removing stuff to kill the HUGE text pyramid>



     

    you actually think your life as you know it is going to continue unchanged.  you my friend are the one in la la land. 

    The world of free markets have been decimated.  And they may never come back.

    First off, I never claimed that my life won't change while President Obama is in office.  Stop assuming that I did say that.



    Second, you're idea of a lack of free market system is just more unfounded paranoia.  The government only truly owns Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack.  Those two were already known to be government founded and partially controlled before this anyways.  They only own a portion of the banks they've bailed out.  Now, I am against the bailout of these businesses.  They should've been left to rot and die off so that the economy could flush itself out.  However, I know that would've caused a catastrophic loss in jobs, which could've thrown the US into another great depression (if the US isn't already heading that way currently).  But, on record, I am still against the previous bail outs.  However, you're idea of the US government becoming Socialistic/Communistic is just plain unfounded, rampant, paranoia.

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379
    Originally posted by Zindaihas


    It's called SarahPAC.  Though not a sure sign that she plans to run for President in 2012, it is generally considered a first step in that direction.  Unless some major distraction arises, I'm betting that she runs.  Let the pro-Palin vs anti-Palin bloodbath begin.



     

    I think somebody has a crush on Sarah Palin... 

    She blew John McCains election on him what makes you think she wont blow her own?

    McCain is still being asked if he thinks making her his running mate was a mistake - it's obvious to everyone except for a few groupies that she did more damage than good in the 2008 election.

    Please don't let your puppy love blind you to how piss poor she performs at the national level.

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    <removing stuff to kill the HUGE text pyramid>



     

    you actually think your life as you know it is going to continue unchanged.  you my friend are the one in la la land. 

    The world of free markets have been decimated.  And they may never come back.

    First off, I never claimed that my life won't change while President Obama is in office.  Stop assuming that I did say that.



    Second, you're idea of a lack of free market system is just more unfounded paranoia.  The government only truly owns Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack.  Those two were already known to be government founded and partially controlled before this anyways.  They only own a portion of the banks they've bailed out.  Now, I am against the bailout of these businesses.  They should've been left to rot and die off so that the economy could flush itself out.  However, I know that would've caused a catastrophic loss in jobs, which could've thrown the US into another great depression (if the US isn't already heading that way currently).  But, on record, I am still against the previous bail outs.  However, you're idea of the US government becoming Socialistic/Communistic is just plain unfounded, rampant, paranoia.

    believe me when I say this...  I hope I'm wrong.

     

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by sepher 
    You have something "better than a poll"? Yeah, the polls showed that McCain/Palin were going to lose, and that she was a detriment to his ticket. They lost, and she apologized for being a detriment to the ticket the day after the election.  'cause polls indicating independents, women, suburban voters and etc. seeing her in a negative light turned out to be true.
    The press can't control a person's vote or their survey responses, the polling was just downright very accurate this last election season and Palin was seen as unworthy, s'all there is to it.
    And again with the "rules", there are no rules. Candidates have lost primaries and gone on to win the next set of primaries; period. You wantin' to believe Huckabee and Romney only had one shot is pure fantasy in your head. They poll as well as she, and the guy at the top at her ticket this year was a failed primary challenger turned nominee. Those are facts, and good reason for 'em to run if they feel like doing so.
    As for the crowds she attracted, what's so special about 'em? I recall her biggest being a supposed 60k in Florida, which was later debunked to have been less than half that by a fire chief's estimates. Not exactly Obama in St. Louis.
    But correct, Huckabee and Romney haven't drawn her numbers, but they also haven't been on a Presidential ticket. Their rallies were from primary voters, and divided between four or more candidates throughout it all.
    Palin will have to deal with the same thing. There's no instant support of the entire Republican party and it's supporters behind her. They'll be divided, and again, she's polling the same as Romney and Huckabee with the voters she needs to win the nomination should she decide to run.
    Alas, I honestly don't even expect her to run. She proved ineffectual in swaying audiences against Obama once, the last thing the Republican party needs when trying to rebrand itself and renew its image, is to put the woman who drove the nail in the party's casket to the forefront.



     

    She said she apologized if she cost McCain any votes.  The press kept hammering her on this to the point where even she must have had some doubt.  What the exit polls showed and I guarantee you is the case is that Palin did more good for the McCain campaign than bad.

    Your second paragragh is absolutely false.  The press cannot outright control how people vote, but they can exert a tremendous amount of influence by how they cover an election.  You had journalists talking about how "infectious" Obama's campaign was.  Chris Mathews said Obama sent a tingle up his leg.  This is not objective reporting and when a voter who may not know where candidates stand on the issues hears this crap, it's very likely to affect their decision.

    When you say the polls were very accurate, which poll are you talking about?  The polls were all over the place.  Some had Obama ahead by a double digit lead going into election day which turned out to be wrong.  The most accurate poll in the 2008 election was the Rasmussen poll.  And you're kidding yourself if you think that polls are conducted completely objectively.  You can easily word a poll question in two completely different ways and come up with different answers.  I'll give you an example.  The stimulus bill.  Let's say one pollster asks a respondent, "Do you support the Republicans blocking President Obama's stimulus plan which would create 4 million jobs in America?"  What's the respondent going to say to that?  Hell no, pass that thing so we can create the 4 million jobs.  Now if the question is worded this way, "Are you in favor of the stimulus package even if it increases the federal deficit to a trillion dollars for the forseeable future?"  My guess is you would get drastically different results.

    Anyway, I realize now that I'm making my analysis of the next election too lengthy.  I can explain why Palin will beat either Romney or Huckabee in briefer terms.  The primaries are conducted to determine which candidate will be the Presidential nominee from their respective parties.  In an overwhelming number of the primaries only registered party members can vote.  There are a few where independents can vote and a few others where even members of the opposite party can vote.  That's how McCain was able to beat Bush so badly in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.  Independents came out in droves to vote for him and much of that vote was driven by democratic operatives in an attempt to knock Bush out of the race.  The same thing will happen to Palin in 2012 if she runs.  Democrats hate her, so they will attempt to influence the Republican primaries wherever they can and vote against her.

    But it won't be enough because there aren't enough of those primaries where anyone can vote.  So in the "party" only primaries, it's all about who can energize the base the most.  Do you see where I'm going now?  There's no way that Huckabee or Romney can energize the Republican party the way Palin will.  If they could, they would have done it in the 2008 primary race.  The Republican Party was apathetic in the primaries because no one excited them.  McCain emerged as the winner of the candidates that no one cared about.

    But as soon as Palin was chosen as the VP candidate, the Republican base became energized.  So even if we accept your premise that independents are turned off by Palin, who cares?  They are not the ones who are going to pick the Republican candidate.  Conservative Republicans will vote overwhelmingly for Palin and enough liberal and moderate Republicans will vote for her that she will beat either Huckabee or Romney.  Now, that doesn't guarantee that Palin will win.  Like I said, there's always a chance that a new face could arise.  That's exactly what happened in the Democratic Party.  Hillary Clinton looked like the heir apparent in 2008.  Then along came Barack Obama and stole the show from her.

    Now turning to the general election.  Let's stay with your premise that independents were turned off to Palin.  Non-political voters are a very fickle group.  That explains why they are moderates and independents.  They tend to blow in the direction of the prevailing wind.  That's how approval ratings are subject to such vast swings.  Conservatives are going to support their candidate almost no matter what and liberals are going to do the same.  It's the moderates and independents who generally determine if a politician is popular or unpopular.  Bush's approval rating shot up to 91% after 9/11.  He left office with an approval rating in the 30s.  He lost the support of the moderates and independents.  Of course, there's always the chance that someone could pull a Blagojevich and lose the support of everyone including their base.

    So, as I say, how voters perceive Obama will be the biggest determining factor in the next election.  If they view his Presidency as a successful one, then he will be re-elected.  If his first term is a failure, the independents and people who think that voting for him was the cool thing to do will abandon him.

    I am going to add one additional caveat about Mitt Romney.  He is very knowledgable on economic issues.  If the economy is still in the tank in three years and Romney can convince the voters that he is the best candidate to fix it, then he might have a chance of squeeking by Palin.  If the economy had become an issue during last year's primary, instead of during the general election, he probably would have beaten McCain as well.  But even then, I still think I would bet on Palin.

    Your dislike of Palin is obvious in your posts.  It amounts more to wishful than strategic thinking.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by Wickersham

    Originally posted by Zindaihas


    It's called SarahPAC.  Though not a sure sign that she plans to run for President in 2012, it is generally considered a first step in that direction.  Unless some major distraction arises, I'm betting that she runs.  Let the pro-Palin vs anti-Palin bloodbath begin.



     

    I think somebody has a crush on Sarah Palin... 



     

    Yeah, David Letterman.  I simply respect her for being able to endure the shots that the media constantly hit her with during the election.  They were merciless and yet she's still standing.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by Zindaihas



    She said she apologized if she cost McCain any votes.  The press kept hammering her on this to the point where even she must have had some doubt.  What the exit polls showed and I guarantee you is the case is that Palin did more good for the McCain campaign than bad.
    Your second paragragh is absolutely false.  The press cannot outright control how people vote, but they can exert a tremendous amount of influence by how they cover an election.  You had journalists talking about how "infectious" Obama's campaign was.  Chris Mathews said Obama sent a tingle up his leg.  This is not objective reporting and when a voter who may not know where candidates stand on the issues hears this crap, it's very likely to affect their decision.
    When you say the polls were very accurate, which poll are you talking about?  The polls were all over the place.  Some had Obama ahead by a double digit lead going into election day which turned out to be wrong.  The most accurate poll in the 2008 election was the Rasmussen poll.  And you're kidding yourself if you think that polls are conducted completely objectively.  You can easily word a poll question in two completely different ways and come up with different answers.  I'll give you an example.  The stimulus bill.  Let's say one pollster asks a respondent, "Do you support the Republicans blocking President Obama's stimulus plan which would create 4 million jobs in America?"  What's the respondent going to say to that?  Hell no, pass that thing so we can create the 4 million jobs.  Now if the question is worded this way, "Are you in favor of the stimulus package even if it increases the federal deficit to a trillion dollars for the forseeable future?"  My guess is you would get drastically different results.
    Anyway, I realize now that I'm making my analysis of the next election too lengthy.  I can explain why Palin will beat either Romney or Huckabee in briefer terms.  The primaries are conducted to determine which candidate will be the Presidential nominee from their respective parties.  In an overwhelming number of the primaries only registered party members can vote.  There are a few where independents can vote and a few others where even members of the opposite party can vote.  That's how McCain was able to beat Bush so badly in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.  Independents came out in droves to vote for him and much of that vote was driven by democratic operatives in an attempt to knock Bush out of the race.  The same thing will happen to Palin in 2012 if she runs.  Democrats hate her, so they will attempt to influence the Republican primaries wherever they can and vote against her.
    But it won't be enough because there aren't enough of those primaries where anyone can vote.  So in the "party" only primaries, it's all about who can energize the base the most.  Do you see where I'm going now?  There's no way that Huckabee or Romney can energize the Republican party the way Palin will.  If they could, they would have done it in the 2008 primary race.  The Republican Party was apathetic in the primaries because no one excited them.  McCain emerged as the winner of the candidates that no one cared about.
    But as soon as Palin was chosen as the VP candidate, the Republican base became energized.  So even if we accept your premise that independents are turned off by Palin, who cares?  They are not the ones who are going to pick the Republican candidate.  Conservative Republicans will vote overwhelmingly for Palin and enough liberal and moderate Republicans will vote for her that she will beat either Huckabee or Romney.  Now, that doesn't guarantee that Palin will win.  Like I said, there's always a chance that a new face could arise.  That's exactly what happened in the Democratic Party.  Hillary Clinton looked like the heir apparent in 2008.  Then along came Barack Obama and stole the show from her.
    Now turning to the general election.  Let's stay with your premise that independents were turned off to Palin.  Non-political voters are a very fickle group.  That explains why they are moderates and independents.  They tend to blow in the direction of the prevailing wind.  That's how approval ratings are subject to such vast swings.  Conservatives are going to support their candidate almost no matter what and liberals are going to do the same.  It's the moderates and independents who generally determine if a politician is popular or unpopular.  Bush's approval rating shot up to 91% after 9/11.  He left office with an approval rating in the 30s.  He lost the support of the moderates and independents.  Of course, there's always the chance that someone could pull a Blagojevich and lose the support of everyone including their base.
    So, as I say, how voters perceive Obama will be the biggest determining factor in the next election.  If they view his Presidency as a successful one, then he will be re-elected.  If his first term is a failure, the independents and people who think that voting for him was the cool thing to do will abandon him.
    I am going to add one additional caveat about Mitt Romney.  He is very knowledgable on economic issues.  If the economy is still in the tank in three years and Romney can convince the voters that he is the best candidate to fix it, then he might have a chance of squeeking by Palin.  If the economy had become an issue during last year's primary, instead of during the general election, he probably would have beaten McCain as well.  But even then, I still think I would bet on Palin.
    Your dislike of Palin is obvious in your posts.  It amounts more to wishful than strategic thinking.

     

    The exit polls showed and you guarantee Palin did more good for McCain than harm? How do you figure?

    The big question in particular poised about the VP nominees was whether or not people felt they were ready to step in as President of the United States if necessary (you know, despite Cheney and Palin's ideas, THE most important purpose of having a vice-president); and over 60% of those polled said no when it came to Palin, while over 60% said yes about Biden. Gee, I wonder which candidate helped their ticket partner the most, and which might've cost theirs votes? Who's delusional again?

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/index.html?iref=24hours

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447844,00.html

    As for Chris Matthews; he isn't conducting surveys and polls. So I dunno what the hell you're talking about when it comes to that. Your feelings about him are moot.

    As for the polls, ALL of 'em showed Obama winning the election, and he did win. Again you're seekin' to argue gray areas and detract from my point without disproving 'em. They were all RIGHT, and probably all within their margins of error as well; the "poll of polls" especially, and fivethirtyeight.com's electoral predictions were incredibly close to being entirely accurate.

    And as for the suspicions of the poll questions being rigged; alrightly fine, believe what you will, but do know you're deluding yourself. Whatever it takes to make it seem like what you're saying is based on anything other than emotion though.

    And about the myth of Palin "energizing the base"; more Democrats than Republicans voted in the general election by a full 7 points. Republican voters only outnumbered Independents by 3 points. Obama took 20% of the conservative vote. Double check me if you want to, but I remember Limbaugh crying about this the day after the election.

    Anyway, almost every opinion you have is refuted by cold hard numbers. Your ideas about Palin's chances are based solely on emotion; lil difficult to build cases with that, especially when you accuse others of being delusional, yet you're the one with a conspiracy theory behind the biggest sources of evidence we have in making predictions; polls.

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

    Originally posted by Wickersham

    Originally posted by Zindaihas


    It's called SarahPAC.  Though not a sure sign that she plans to run for President in 2012, it is generally considered a first step in that direction.  Unless some major distraction arises, I'm betting that she runs.  Let the pro-Palin vs anti-Palin bloodbath begin.



     

    I think somebody has a crush on Sarah Palin... 



     

    Yeah, David Letterman.  I simply respect her for being able to endure the shots that the media constantly hit her with during the election.  They were merciless and yet she's still standing.



     

    Sort of like how young girls respect the Jonas Brothers' music but the rest of us don't for some reason?

    You and Sarah Palin sitting in a tree...

    Awe, it's sooooo cute and sweet that you think she's special and all that but I'm going to need you to sober up for a minute and take a look at her without the rose tinted glasses.

    She failed in what the republican party needed her to do - she FAILED.  The reasons why she failed and the conditions behind her failure will still be there in 4 years...

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by sepher
    The exit polls showed and you guarantee Palin did more good for McCain than harm? How do you figure?



     

    Because that's what happened, that's how I figure. Without Palin, Republicans would have fared even worse in last year's election. You pasted links which show otherwise, proving my previous post that polls vary wildly depending on how they are conducted.

    Compare:

    Don't blame Palin

    Exit polls show Palin helped McCain

    You must be scratching your head right about now considering how much faith you like to put into polls.  How can this be?  Polls showing different results on the same subject.  To me it makes perfect sense.  I trust the accuracy of polls about as much as I trust a politician's campaign promises.  There are too many variables to take into consideration.  Who is conducting the polls?  How are the questions phrased?

    To me the best evidence is to compare the McCain campaign before Palin was on the ticket and after she was added.  Before, it was a largely lifeless campaign.  I know I personally was uninspired.  And after, well at least she infused energy into the race.  I saw that just about everywhere I looked.  Conservatives who had planned to sit on the sidelines suddenly came to life.

    People can rag on Palin all they want in an attempt to discredit her political future, but the reasons McCain lost the 2008 election are not that difficult to figure out to someone who is being objective.

    1.  He simply was not conservative enough for the Republican Party.  In the Senate, he sided with the Democratic Party enough times that many Republicans thought he belonged in the Democratic Party.  What's the point of voting for a pseudo Democrat when you can simply vote for a genuine one?

    2.  Bush's unpopularity hurt McCain.  Although I personally respect Bush for making the tough choices most people would not have the guts to make, I also think he made some mistakes and he was a drag on McCain.  Even though McCain tried to distance himself from Bush as much as possible, a lot of voters still associated him with the President since they are in the same party.

    3.  And finally, even though those two were probably enough to seal McCain's defeat, the bad economic news popping up in October was the final nail in the coffin.

    Obama's charisma and McCain's lack of it probably had some effect as well.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

    Originally posted by sepher
    The exit polls showed and you guarantee Palin did more good for McCain than harm? How do you figure?


    Because that's what happened, that's how I figure. Without Palin, Republicans would have fared even worse in last year's election. You pasted links which show otherwise, proving my previous post that polls vary wildly depending on how they are conducted.

    Compare:

    Don't blame Palin

    Exit polls show Palin helped McCain

    You must be scratching your head right about now considering how much faith you like to put into polls.  How can this be?  Polls showing different results on the same subject.  To me it makes perfect sense.  I trust the accuracy of polls about as much as I trust a politician's campaign promises.  There are too many variables to take into consideration.  Who is conducting the polls?  How are the questions phrased?

    To me the best evidence is to compare the McCain campaign before Palin was on the ticket and after she was added.  Before, it was a largely lifeless campaign.  I know I personally was uninspired.  And after, well at least she infused energy into the race.  I saw that just about everywhere I looked.  Conservatives who had planned to sit on the sidelines suddenly came to life.

    People can rag on Palin all they want in an attempt to discredit her political future, but the reasons McCain lost the 2008 election are not that difficult to figure out to someone who is being objective.

    1.  He simply was not conservative enough for the Republican Party.  In the Senate, he sided with the Democratic Party enough times that many Republicans thought he belonged in the Democratic Party.  What's the point of voting for a pseudo Democrat when you can simply vote for a genuine one?

    2.  Bush's unpopularity hurt McCain.  Although I personally respect Bush for making the tough choices most people would not have the guts to make, I also think he made some mistakes and he was a drag on McCain.  Even though McCain tried to distance himself from Bush as much as possible, a lot of voters still associated him with the President since they are in the same party.

    3.  And finally, even though those two were probably enough to seal McCain's defeat, the bad economic news popping up in October was the final nail in the coffin.

    Obama's charisma and McCain's lack of it probably had some effect as well.



    Oook, in that first link, of the two pages of opinionated text as factually rooted as your own spiels, there's one paragraph citing any numbers.



    "Exit polls show McCain beat Obama among once-a-week churchgoers 55% to 45%. Yes, that means McCain significantly underperformed compared to Bush among this crucial demographic - but without Palin, the trend would have been far worse."

    What's factual in that statement? One thing; McCain underperformed in the ONE cited demographic compared to Bush.

    The rest is just opinion, what evidence is there that McCain would've performed "even worse" without Palin? That link disputes NOTHING. In fact it only makes sense of the 60-some percent of polled voters who felt Palin wouldn't be ready to be President when one considers McCain underperforming Bush in any demographic.

    As for the second link, the opinion of Palin being an asset I'm guessing is entirely based off the numbers of voters who said Palin was a factor in their decision to vote splittin' mostly for McCain. Makes sense, but has to be amounted against the amount of people she failed to see her as a factor that went for Obama, and more astounding numbers like Obama taking 81% of the vote of 60% of voters who felt she wasn't ready to be president.

    All the poll numbers can be considered, but amassing 'em doesn't paint a rosey picture for Palin being any kind of asset; mainly because her ticket LOST, ceded 1/5th of the conservative vote (yeah they came to life), and a vast majority of all the other demographics. There's just no evidence of her "energizing" anything.

    Polls aren't difficult to understand, nor are there any reasons to distrust them for anything other than what they are; percentile numbers with margins of error. They were dead on this past election season.

    As for McCain's faults. Of course he had faults, and Obama did too. Palin was certainly, and provenly a detriment to McCain though.

Sign In or Register to comment.