Posted on 08/19/2011 9:56:45 PM PDT by Gargantua
Seems like the media was just as conniving 30 years ago as they are now. Only difference now is they aren’t keeping it a secret...they let you know up front that they are on the socialists’ team.
According to you and your oh-so-reliable "polling data," that is.
Alternatively, if I'm right and you're wrong, she will announce, immediately raise a staggering amount of campaign cash from millions of highly motivated supporters nationwide, and her candidacy will launch like a Titan VII rocket.
We'll see who's got their finger closer to the pulse of this thing quite shortly indeed. Good luck.
< snickering at you >
8^D
Exactly. Back in those days, the media still tried to show at least a pretense of objectivity. No more.
Americans have waked up a little bit about the media but we’ve still got a long way to go. 2012 will tell the story if we’re awake enough to save the nation.
I have not questioned whether she could raise money. I have even said that I think she could win the nomination. I just don't think she can win the general election. Not without winning over the independents and moderate Republicans, which she so far has not shown any ability to do.
Where’s the music?
Sept 3rd can’t come soon enough for me. We can end the charade once and for all with Palin saying she isn’t running. Or she can announce she is running and maybe we can get to see her interact in actual debates with the other candidates rather than take spoon fed questions from Fox News every week.
Oh, and did I mention, I think you may have a "cognitive disorder." (Just so you don't miss it this time.)
LMAO!! Please don't take offense, I'm just funning with you. I'm an incorrigible jokester with an annoying habit of saying things that I find funny, entirely and solely for my own humorous enjoyment, and without care or regard for whether the people I'm addressing think it's funny.
It can be off-putting for others, but I am greatly entertained nontheless. Just having fun. "Fun with Bob."
8^D
Racist
Right... like you can't hear that. You're fooling nobody.
Sheesh!
;^\
That last full paragraph made me tear up a little.
;^)
Right now the campaign is just beginning, personally (if she runs) I believe she will have a harder time winning the GOP nomination than winning the general.
Do you honestly believe that in the middle of a campaign where the public is actually being reminded daily of Obama's record, and they are actually dealing with the real image of Sarah Palin on an ongoing basis those precious independents and moderate republicans are going to vote for Bambi?
You really think that?
Time will tell. You don’t need decades of compelling writings and Palin has plenty of policy positions (many via facebook) and 2 books. She didn’t spend 2 terms of governor but she has been in politics for a very long time, including 10 years in municipal government. She has truly worked her way up which gives her a unique perspective (one of which is the effectiveness of a strong local government when the feds stay out of their way).
Negatives are turned around all the time. How many products whose reputations were in the tank for one reason or another, whether their fault or not (Tylenol is still around), seemed as if they’d never survive their negatives and are now trusted brands? It’s simple marketing. In 0bama’s case it was slick & deceitful but Palin doesn’t have to do anything but her record and her love of country. As I said, the country doesn’t know her. Her negatives are built on a false image. And she knows how to get around the establishment Republicans & the press. Heck, she’s got them following her all over now doing off the cuff interviews with the whole press corps at once, no filter no editing.
She has one of the keenest political minds I’ve seen and I’ve been amazed at how tough she is. She’s got a whole slew of proof...how she never backs down no matter how much she’s maligned. You watch, just like her recently released emails, this too will be turned on the press, the left, and the establishment RINO’S.
And Reagan was 30 points down a week before the election. But I bet his internal polling said something different. Bet Sarah Palin’s does too.
Cindie
Not true:
"Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME'S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.
Some pollsters at that time, however, were getting results that showed a slight Reagan lead. ABC News-Harris surveys, for example, consistently gave Reagan a lead of a few points until the climactic last week of October. "
"Nation: Where the Polls Went Wrong", Time Magazine, 12/1/1980
Reagan was actually ahead of Carter after the GOP convention. From that point until the 2nd debate, the polling had them within a few points of each other, with the lead changing hands several times. But Carter was not ahead of Reagan by a 30-point margin after the early primaries.
How can Sarah succeed in winning over enough of the general voters to win, on November 7, 2012? I do hope that, if she’s the final ‘12 GOP Presidential pick, she can win it all (and ditto, if it’s somebody else that’s the final ‘12 GOP Presidential pick, please and thank you).
Well, all time is doing is reporting the numbers.
Reagan was down by 30 points right after the Iowa caucuses, but all of Carter's opponents were down then. The country was responding to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Hostage crisis by rallying around the president ("Nation: In a Fiercely Hawkish Mood", Time Magazine, 2/11/1980). By April of that year, Reagan was tied with Carter ("And Reagan Catches Carter", Time Magazine, 4/14/1980). Just a couple of weeks later, Reagan was leading by almost 10 points, causing heartburn for the Dems("Squalls Among the Democrats", Time Magazine, 5/19/1980).
And let's not forget that Reagan's numbers were kept down after the convention by John Anderson running a 3rd party campaign. If not for Anderson, Reagan would have been up by 10+ points all summer and fall.
Right there with you!
Registered voters will produce vastly different polling results than likely voters. I’m unable to verify the information in the time magazine article because I get a message that says “not available on this server”. I don’t have a lot of trust in TIME so it would be helpful to see what they used as proof.
Cindie
How? With 60-65% of the popular vote, and all the Electoral College votes but Massachusetts (12), New York (31), and California (55). That totals 98. Only 266 are needed to win. There are 533 available.
How she will win will be in the biggest landslide in the last 200 years. Possible ever.
;^\
For instance, if a pollster believes that there are 3 Democrats for every two Republicans nationwide, then the only way they can report on a "fairly representative" result is to poll three Democrats for every two Republicans.
They call this a poll that has been "weighted" for accuracy. Yeah.... right. Josef Goebbels would be proud.
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.