I think Palin's unfavoribles are wide, but less than an inch deep

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Obviously there is no logical reason for her unfavorables in the polls to be what they are. Did she do anything like let an intern give her oral sex or get involved in some disasterous scandal ? absolutely not. There is NOTHING on her. They have looked and looked and looked. Nobody has found a thing. She seems to be the kind of leader that the American people are wanting to represent them.

They do. I contend to you that her unfavoribles mean NOTHING. It is useless polling data and should have no impact on who wins the nomination in 2012. If she gets the nomination, she would win electoral votes based on national and global events (the economy, ect)

I believe the number of Americans who hate her with a passion is very very small. The unfavoribles you see in the polls are a result of some very shallow group think left over from the 2012. Nobody has seen Saraj Palin run her own national campaign. It would not take much at all to turn those numbers inside out.

What we see here is that the anti palin people in this country are just very loud. Conservatives hear them and for some reason think the high volume of their voice mean they have huge numbers. Even some here on FR get their information from people who hate them and then they are ignorant enough to toss it around like it is fact !

[CA Conservative]

Actually, the only poll I have seen near that is Rasmussen, but Perry was at 39%, Obama at 46%. Now while that is still barely outside the margin of error, that is a drop from the previous Rasmussen poll, and if other polls start showing a similar result, then that does portend problems. However, at least Perry has shown the ability to match up well against Obama in the past - something Sarah has yet to show. So the poll you reference is definitely a red flag that should be watched, but I’m afraid that Perry is still miles more electable than Sarah.

[The Pack Knight]

To be fair, Alaska is actually the only state that has anything approaching a true "loser pays" system. Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure allows a percentage of attorneys fees to be recovered by the prevailing party, with some exceptions.

Of course, this rule does not apply to ethics complaints filed with the Attorney General, which is what Palin was dealing with. That procedure does however allow government officials to have their attorney fees reimbursed by the state when they are exonerated and when certain other conditions are met.

Texas, on the other hand, has no real loser pays system. In fact, it is probably one of the most generous states in the union for awarding attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs - plaintiffs in virtually any contract, debt, or consumer case can recover attorney's fees along with damages. Prevailing defendants, on the other hand, can almost never recover attorney fees except in certain specific procedural circumstances (such as when a plaintiff fails to file a sufficient expert report as required under the med mal reform statutes) or if the plaintiff files a frivolous pleading.

The supposed "loser pays" system enacted by the Texas legislature this year really isn't anything like a true "English rule" loser pays system. All they did was direct the Texas Supreme Court to amend the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow the defendant to file a motion to dismiss the case without the need for hearing evidence if, based on the pleadings, the case has "no basis in law or fact". The prevailing party on this motion is to be awarded whatever reasonable attorney fees he has incurred to that point.

That means that if the plaintiff's case survives the motion to dismiss, the defendant has to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees in getting past that motion. The plaintiff only has to pay attorney fees if his case is dismissed under that rule. He doesn't have to pay if he loses later, such as in summary judgment or at trial.

Furthermore, we have no idea yet exactly how the rule will work procedurally or what the exact standard will be. The statute that was ultimately passed by the legislature is pretty vague and gives the Supreme Court a lot of latitude in figuring out. All we know is that it will have to be ruled on within 45 days and without hearing evidence. Also, the statute gives the Supreme Court no time frame in which it has to promulgate the new rules.

Sorry to get long-winded, but as a Texas lawyer I don't want anyone to have any misconceptions about the existence of "loser pays" in Texas. Other than Texas's med mal reform (which is certainly a big deal), Texas is still a fairly plaintiff-friendly state.

[Niteflyr]

So the poll you reference is definitely a red flag that should be watched, but I’m afraid that Perry is still miles more electable than Sarah.

You mean this poll?

[Lakeshark]

So the poll you reference is definitely a red flag that should be watched

No, no, it's a trend, not a red flag. The more people see him, the more they learn about his record, the more they're going to dislike him, and the further down he will drop in the polls. I mean, you're the one who says polls show it all, right?

Shooting a coyote may play big for the PerryKrishnas, but it's not going to help when people learn he's a big government RINO campaigning as a conservative.

[CA Conservative]

You do realize that is an Internet poll, right?

[Niteflyr]

You do realize that is an Internet poll, right?

Yes I do...:oP

[CA Conservative]

No, no, it's a trend, not a red flag.

Sorry, by definition, a single poll cannot be a "trend".

[Niteflyr]

but it's not going to help when people learn he's a big government RINO campaigning as a conservative.

Unless Perry supporters can keep the truth from getting out....

[Lakeshark]

Obviously.

You yourself alluded to his drop from previous polls........

It's called a trend.

[magritte]

Show disrespect? This whole thread was about Palins unfavorables, which are real and overwhelming. The guy who posted if thinks they are easily overcome, but I beg to differ.

I’ll admit, you’ve got the Palin victim and anti-Perry talking points down pretty well. Congrats !

[Lakeshark]

but it's not going to help when people learn he's a big government RINO campaigning as a conservative.

Unless Perry supporters can keep the truth from getting out....

Your NRO poll is showing the truth is getting out. The PerryKrishnas hate it, but his record is his achilles heel.

[Niteflyr]

The PerryKrishnas hate it, but his record is his achilles heel.

Ain't that such a damn shame they hold you to your record?...hahahaha!!!

[editor-surveyor]

One of them.

[magritte]

Hmmmmm, your candidate is “not Rick Perry.” Figures. But yer good for a few laughs regardless!

[Lakeshark]

I noticed you can't deal with the dude's actual record, I suppose you really like that he can shoot coyotes though.

Good for you.......enjoy your evening, maybe you can pull up the replay of that coyote thing.......

[filbert]

She could have kept her job as Governor, stayed out of the limelight, brushed up on all manner of issues she is not used to dealing with, given an occasional speech at non partisan events, etc. She needed to just go away for awhile, stay out of the spotlight, let time pass and come back stronger.

Not true. She would have been the first sitting American governor to be forced to declare bankruptcy, due to the personal expenses incurred by defending herself from the malicious "ethics" complaints.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Now, it's a more nuanced (and more serious, IMHO) complaint against her that the ethics laws that eventually forced her from office--despite the facts that she did nothing unethically while in office--the problem was that the ethics complaints allowed by law were essentially unlimited and unregulated and the defense of which was not paid for by state funds but by the individual office-holders, something that unscrupulous Democrats seized on and took full advantage of--were the ones that she herself championed and got enacted into law. She was hoist by her own petard, so to speak.

But the "quitter" complaint is just an blind and/or ignorant copmplaint, representing either a lack of understanding of the situation, and/or blinkered, biased partisanship.

[Niteflyr]

Your NRO poll is showing the truth is getting out. The PerryKrishnas hate it, but his record is his achilles heel.

Final results from that "meaningless internet" NRO poll after a massive 50,000 votes was : Palin~74% Perry 26%..."By any standard, and even allowing for multiple voting by enthusiasts-if that is the case NRO's 50,000+ poll result is astounding. For one candidate to get 74% of the votes shows, at the very least, a huge degree of enthusiasm for that person. This of course contradicts the lie of the latest media theme that “Palin's support is declining”,"

link here~

[samantha]

You are too disgusting for words. You do not think she has been victimized? If you Palin haters would show a little decency and speak out against the pond scum that have been trying to destroy her and her Family for three years you might look less like freaking no feeling Robots. What are you going to do? Are you going to wait around until all Conservative Women are treated this way.

Get some courage, and get rid of that loathing of Sarah, and Puppy loyalty for Perry, which does not allow you see his warts that the everyday person will see when the Media runs with them, You are a lost cause.

[CA Conservative]

You yourself alluded to his drop from previous polls...

It is funny to watch you twist yourself into little knots of illogic to try to force a point.

I mentioned his drop from the previous poll from that same polling company, not from previous polls. A single poll cannot be a trend. It may signal a true shift in support, or it may be an anomaly. Now, if the other polls start showing a large drop from their previous numbers for Perry, then you can start talking about a "trend".

[Hugin]

That’s what I remembered her saying.

And Joan Jett rocks.