Posted on 12/18/2010 9:25:43 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Predictably, the blogosphere is alive with polls telling conservatives that, in spite of the smashing conservative triumph of last month inspired and led by the TEA Party and Sarah Palin, Governor Palin's nomination for President in 2012 will result in an electoral debacle at the hands of Barack Obama. Most recently, ABC and the Washington Post produced a poll showing that Obama would trounce Palin by 22 points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121701512.html?hpid=topnews
I frequently see bloggers and conservative analysts, even those who favor Palin, try to refudiate such polls based upon the sample size, the length of time between now and the election, the absence of the momentum building, year long Presidential campaign, the fact that Regan came back from even greater deficits, and many other factors which render such polls meaningless. All these rebuttals are well taken, but it seems to me that they miss the point.
Notice how the MSM outlets always focus on generic national polls, using 2008 turnout models, ignoring the 2010 elections. By responding to these polls as some do, we are making a classic mistake that no good lawyer or advocate ever makes: We are letting the opponent frame the issue and accepting their premise. The election is not a national election, based on a generic plebiscite. It is 50 separate state elections. The Establishment and its MSM pipe organ never want to talk about the real key to electability....the Electoral College, because it does not fit their chosen meme of Palin's unelectability. Instead, an analysis of the Electoral College, which is the true measure of electability not only shows that Palin is electable, but that it is Obama whose hold on the presidency that is becoming increasingly precarious.
The electoral map is now tilting heavily in her direction, with the South solidly in her corner and the Midwest (especially Ohio and Wisconsin) trending heavily away from Obama and toward her. If she holds the McCain states (which is a given) and adds just six more (Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, Indiana, and Virginia)---traditional red states, in each of which Obama's poll numbers are in the tank-- she wins the Presidency with 271 electoral votes.
I do not even include formerly blue states that went deep red such as Wisconsin (Tea Party Senator), New Mexico (Mama Grizzly/Tea Party Governor) and New Hampshire (Mama Grizzly wins Senate 60-40 over Dem Congressman). Obama will be hard pressed in all three, especially Wisconsin.
We all need to block out the Charlie Cooks and the other proponents of the MSM agitprop that Palin cannot win. They are out to demoralize us and their generic poll numbers, two years out, do not change the electoral college math, which favors Palin. We need to stop allowing the lamestream media to define "electability" in such a way that it suits their purposes.
From now on, when someone challenges Governor Palin's electability and throws an MSM poll in your face, politely redirect the argument to the electoral college and enlighten them about the fact that, under the Constitution and in light of the current political conditions in the battleground states, Sarah Palin is not only electable, but it is Obama who is becoming increasingly unelectable.
Reading my post are ya 8-)...
Posted in Oct, when I noticed she was already planning out her electoral victory. I ran it by a political "pro" a couple of weeks later and they noted, yes that is exactly what she is doing, she is no dummy.
Go here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605574/posts?page=13#13
All go you one better...
She picks a VP from Michigan.
Note, her 1st book started with a reference about Michgian if my memory is correct.
Michigan is Battle Ground Zero IMHO. If she gets a VP from their she takes it and by extension OH and Indiana. If she gets the other states I mentioned it is game over for Obozo.
My pick?
Ford's CEO Allan Mulally.. It is so out of the box which she will need. The debatein 12' will be about cutting the cost of Gov't and getting our financial house in order. What better VP than the guy who brought Ford back from the brink without a bailout.
Oops the other states that went Red big time this year, MN, WI, OH, PA, and MI, she stand a good chance of grabbing all their electoral votes IMHO...
Very interesting scenario!
Murk wanted a do-over.
She got it with DNC influence, funding, votes, and adoring press and pr.
Had the situation been reversed...Miller NEVER could have gotten a write-campaign off the ground.
He would have been pilloried right out of the gate.
No question the cards were stacked in Murk’s favor. As I said, Anchorage is a hotbed of liberals. The mistake that some people make is thinking that republicans elected Murkowski. They didn’t. It was Anchorage Dems crossing over. They knew their guy, McAdams, couldn’t win it and they sure as heck didn’t want Miller so they voted for dem-lite in Murkowski.
“If Sarah runs for president, she will likely carry Alaska’s 2 EC votes but it isn’t a given by any means. Anchorage is a huge liberal enclave with the majority of voters in the state living there.”
You are out of your mind.
Someone needs to get in touch with Heart
The lefty Wilson sisters were up in arms when McCain’s campaign used “Barracuda” at some speaking engagements. Of course, royalties were paid so they really couldn’t do anything about it.
It is quite possible that some kind of “friendship” or at least contact may have occurred as Heart made an appearance on Dancing With The Stars when Bristol Palin was on . I am not sure if Sarah was in attendance that particular night, though.
Was there an existing belief that Reagan was stupid and ill-prepared, to the same extent as Palin is said to be, in popular culture?
I don’t seem to remember it being anywhere near as bad in the culture at large. Maybe in political and media circles, but not in the general culture.
Besides how are the states McCain won in 2008 guaranteed to carry over to the next general election ? About as many times two years ago as we heard “She’s running for vice president, not president” ?? Personally I want someone next time that is unequivocally competent and experienced. Not a candidate that Republican pundits and even other candidates were practically unanimous in minimizing the chances of their succession.
You don’t remember the “doddering old fool” meme?
That didn't work out all that well last time. Perhaps those who support state's rights would do better this time around since Obama is so massively incompetent. Or perhaps we could expel the far left states and permit them to apply for re-entry once they cleaned up their act and demonstrated that they were willing to live by the written constitution. I hope we can avoid another civil war, but the decision is Obama's and Reid's.
No way she wins without the law being raped, even if democrats crossed over.
Benishek's district is right next to me, I hope he stays solid, what a great pick up that was.
“Was there an existing belief that Reagan was stupid and ill-prepared, to the same extent as Palin is said to be, in popular culture?
I don’t seem to remember it being anywhere near as bad in the culture at large. Maybe in political and media circles, but not in the general culture.”
By general culture, I take it you mean flyover country. She is much stronger in flyover country which is why Palin is competitive in battleground states.
In addition to being stupid and ill-prepared, Reagan was also, because of his age, labeled as senile. It was absolutely pervasive through out the culture, except for conservatives. This was the prevailing view of the Establishment, just as it is with Palin. Reagan had not closed the sale with blue collar cultural conservatives by this time in 1978 either. He was still suspected as a friend of “the rich man”. Palin is much further along with this demographic (the blue collar worker) than Regan was aat the same point in the 1980 cycle.
Prevailing opinion about Reagan at this time is perhaps epitomized by what a sitting GOP President and his National Seccurity adviser thought of Reagan:
“Nixon on Tape: Reagan Was “Shallow” and of “Limited Mental Capacity””
“President Nixon: What’s your evaluation of Reagan after meeting him several times now.
Kissinger: Well, I think he’s a—actually I think he’s a pretty decent guy.
President Nixon: Oh, decent, no question, but his brains
Kissinger: Well, his brains, are negligible. I—
President Nixon: He’s really pretty shallow, Henry.
Kissinger: He’s shallow. He’s got no...he’s an actor. He—When he gets a line he does it very well. He said, “Hell, people are remembered not for what they do, but for what they say. Can’t you find a few good lines?” [Chuckles.] That’s really an actor’s approach to foreign policy—to substantive....
President Nixon: I’ve said a lot of good things, too, you know damn well.
Kissinger: Well, that too.
Later in the 24-minute-long discussion, the two discussed the possibility of Reagan running for president:
President Nixon: Can you think though, Henry, can you think, though, that Reagan with certain forces running in the direction could be sitting right here?
Kissinger: Inconceivable.
So much for Kissinger’s powers of prognostication. As they were finishing up—after discussing other matters—Nixon slammed Reagan again:
President Nixon: Back to Reagan though. It shows you how a man of limited mental capacity simply doesn’t know what the Christ is going on in the foreign area. He’s got to know that on defense—doesn’t he know these battles we fight and fight and fight? Goddamn it, Henry, we’ve been at—
Kissinger: And I told him—he said, “Why don’t you fire the bureaucracy?” I said, “Because there are only so many battles we can fight. We take on the bureaucracy now, they’re going to leak us to death. Name me one thing that we have done that the bureaucracy made us do.”
President Nixon: The bureaucracy has had nothing to do with anything.
Kissinger: No, no. They’ve made our lives harder. They’ve driven us crazy. But that doesn’t affect him.”
[end of transcript]
Shallow, negligible brains, limited mental capacity?
That was the conventional wisdom as well as the Establishment spin on Reagan then, just as it is on Palin now.
GREAT TAGLINE!
Same here. She is the one.
I spent about 45 minutes talking to a Democrat today, which is rare for me. He was a reasonable sort, but at one point he opined that he didn't think that Sarah Palin will be elected to the presidency in 2012. He asked me who I thought had the best chance among the Republicans.
Since he was a nice enough fellow, I took the time to lay it all out to him from a Republican's perspective. First thing I asked him, was to explain to me why the MSM and the Democrats spend so much time attacking Sarah Palin, if she's got no chance of winning. It was as though I had stopped time in his universe. You could actually see the realization sweep over him.
I politely explained to him that what the public doesn't know, is her record of accomplishment in government, and that if they were to become even somewhat familiarized with that record, they'd look at her quite a bit differently than some of them do, now.
I hit three or four other important points, but let's just say that when I was done, he was ready to pick up a copy of "Going Rogue".
If you haven’t already posted this excellent suggestion as a separate vanity, I’d ask you to do so. It’s a dynamite concept worth exploring with the whole forum.
8^O
;-)
Ditto. Palin would sweep through Alaska just like she will America. I don't count California, Oregon, (upstate) Washington, Massachusetts or New York in that statement... these states are more like the Ukraine or Vladivostok.
;-\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.