Careful what you wish for, progressives [Nutroots for Palin in straw poll, think she's weak]

Sarah Palin may be more unpopular than ever before, but if she chooses to run for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race, she can at least count on bipartisan support. In fact, according to a straw poll at this year’s Netroots Nation -- the massive progressive bacchanal held last weekend in Las Vegas -- a substantial plurality of conference attendees wants the half-term Alaskan governor to be President Obama’s general election opponent.

It’s not hard to figure out why: Even Obama’s harshest critics on the left almost unanimously favor him against any possible Republican challenger, and Palin’s candidacy would make 2012 look less like an election than a massacre. It’s not just Obama who would profit, either; his opponent would be such a drag on down-ticket Republican candidates that one could say she represents the Democratic Party’s best hope of undoing the damage they’re sure to incur this November.

Palin allies such as Rush Limbaugh often claim that liberals vilify Palin because they’re afraid of her, but there’s really no way to reconcile that assertion with the outcome of the N.N. straw poll. If anything, the numbers tell us, liberals aren't afraid enough.

I don’t mean to suggest that liberals underestimate Palin’s electoral fortunes; they are, truly, quite grim. The true danger is not that Palin would ever seize the White House, but rather what her nomination would mean for political discourse and basic stability in this country.

A democracy, after all, must be founded on broad consensus regarding certain social norms. That does not mean there is no room for disagreement over policy and philosophy within that broad framework -- indeed, that is an obvious feature, not a bug, of representative democracy -- but that these disagreements, no matter how fervent and profound they may become, must take place between parties that share a mutual commitment to the liberal democratic system (as in the system stemming from the philosophical tradition of classical liberalism, not modern political liberalism).

To try to enforce this sort of ideological commitment through law would, paradoxically, undermine liberal democracy itself, which is why enforcement is instead left to social taboo and the electoral process itself. So candidates for office who hold distinctly illiberal, anti-democratic views -- such as those who, for example, call for armed overthrow of their government, or the assassination of their political opponents -- are expected to be voted into unemployment, thereby providing a strong incentive for career politicians to all behave more or less like reasonable adults, regardless of their differences.

This is the sort of ideal theory that’s never functioned perfectly, but recently it’s been particularly bad. The tendency of the Republican Party under President Bush (and sadly, more recently, the DNC under Obama) to equate reasonable criticism of the administration’s war effort with treason pales in comparison with the remarks of Sharron Angle, Republican nominee from Nevada in this cycle’s most prominent Senate race: This is a woman who was nominated by a major party to run for the upper chamber of Congress despite having winked heavily and repeatedly at the possibility of armed insurrection and the assassination of her opponent.

Of course, if Angle loses (and she probably will), no one thinks she’s going to follow through on her violent rhetoric. That’s not really the point; rather, the true fear here is that someone else might. When veiled incitements to violence become mainstream, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of unhinged loners will attempt to follow through on them. There is, after all, a reason why right-wing violence trended upward after Obama’s election.

But if you think it’s bad now, wait until you see what happens if the plurality of N.N. attendees see their wish granted. Palin has already demonstrated a disturbing willingness to frame even minor political squabbles in terms of "tyranny" versus "liberty," and to make her a major party’s presidential candidate would only do more to throw the spotlight on that sort of incitement. Perhaps, as Kevin Drum prays, the GOP would then "go down to such an epic defeat that they finally get some sense knocked into them." But in the meantime, we would be facing a long, protracted campaign in which both a major political party and the mainstream press would treat violently anti-democratic positions as existing within the confines of reasonable political discourse. We’ve already had quite a bit of that over the past few years; accommodating and encouraging it could potentially make things much, much worse.

So is my position. Your position is not particularly relevant.

And yet you asked me to state my position: "Now why don't you tell us why she can't win?"

Didn't really think that through, did ya? ;)

In other words, you have no anwesr to my question, and instead, insist on your “right” to troll Palin threads with impunity.

The Superfan tactic of labelling anyone who doesn't worship Palin a "troll" is not only tiring but it reveals an emotional attachment that is no better than Obama worship.

I support Palin and asked for non-emotion-based facts that indicate Palin can win, and not why people like her, but why they believe she can win.

Asking why people think a candidate can win is trolling to you. Wow.

Odd how you totally avoided the question,

LOL From a guy who can't answer a simple question except by posting a poll he then says can't be trusted.

and instead veer off on a tangent with yet another mindless attack on those who back Palin.

Where did I do that--when I asked "why do you back Palin?" If you think that's a "mindless attack" you need to toughen up, kid.

The whiney victim pose that appears whenever someone asks for FACTS and information about whether or not we can defeat Obama with a candidate is so damned tired and shows a lack of intellectual vigor and honesty, and an excess of emotional attachment where clear thinking is required.

Ummmmm... I made it clear in my post that PPP is a Democratic Party, anti-Palin outfit. More reason to expect their polls to be biased against Palin. Which is why even PPP, having Palin neck and neck with 0bama is pretty remarkable.

This after you just accused me of dodging a question.

Is this poll reliable or not, yes or no?

Plus Gallup just came out with their own poll which has Palin ahead of anyone else in favourability ratings amongst Republicans: Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].

That's nice. So just to be clear, Gallup and PPP polls are reliable in terms of tracking Palin's popularity according to you. OK, I will take that as your long-delayed answer to my very simple, very relevant question as to indicators Palin can win. Thanks.

“LOL From a guy who can't answer a simple question except by posting a poll he then says can't be trusted”

That is a heck of a lot better than you did. You totally dodged my question, and veered off on a tangent with a made up distraction.
And..Umm..the other poll I posted said Sarah Palin has a much higher favorability rating than any other potential GOP candidate for 2012:
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

“Asking why people think a candidate can win is trolling to you. Wow”

Refusing to accept all perfectly reasonable answers given to your question, and ridiculing any answers given to you, only for you to to come back and continue to make the same demands, IS trolling.

“Where did I do that”

Right here:
“odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “

“—when I asked “why do you back Palin?” If you think that's a “mindless attack” you need to toughen up, kid”

You demanded to know why Plain can win in 2012, and refused to accept all answers given to you. This is your post # 7: "What I think is that for all the love for Palin, I’m looking for actual evidence that she can win a presidential race" I asked you to tell us why Palin cannot win in 2012. I am yet to hear even one answer from you, let alone a good one. Yet you have continued to ridicule every attempt at answering your question, even while rfeusing to make any attempt to answer question asked you. Figures.

“The whiney victim pose that appears whenever someone asks for FACTS and information about whether or not we can defeat Obama with a candidate is so damned tired and shows a lack of intellectual vigor and honesty, and an excess of emotional attachment where clear thinking is required.”

Plenty of posters in this thread have given you good, very pertinent facts, only for you to dismiss them out of hand. Meanwhile, you are yet to supply even one fact or answer any questions posed to you. You are the one with the emotional problem here.

“This after you just accused me of dodging a question.”

You are STILL dodging the question. As a matter of fact, you are yet to answer any question posed to you at all.

“Is this poll reliable or not, yes or no?”

If anything, there is a pretty good chance chance that this poll is biased AGAINST Sarah Plain, not for her. So if anything, Sarah Plain is probably doing better than in this poll.
Plus I backed it up with the Gallup poll, which has Sarah Plain solidly ahead of any other GOP candidate for 2012, in favourability amongst Republicans.

“So just to be clear, Gallup and PPP polls are reliable in terms of tracking Palin’s popularity according to you”

Just to be clear, PPP is a Democratic Party supporting outfit (they don't even make that a secret do they?). Their polls will if anything, more likely to tilt AGAINST Sarah Palin.
Get it?

That is a heck of a lot better than you did. You totally dodged my question, and veered off on a tangent with a made up distraction.

All of your postings to me are tangents, and attempts to squirm out of answering a very simple, very pertinent question.

You're so emotional about a simple, important question that should be so easy to answer. And when people ask for evidence that has meaning, you call them trolls.

So why do you keep responding to this "troll" instead of offering the tons of evidence you must have that will answer my very simple question?

Why is that? And..Umm..the other poll I posted said Sarah Palin has a much higher favorability rating than any other potential GOP candidate for 2012: Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts

Got it the first time. Doesn't impress me anymore than it ever has--you can't seem to respond to the question. I have no doubts about Palin's popularity with Republicans, but this isn't an election against Republicans only, it's also going to be against Obama.

Why can't you understand that?

Refusing to accept all perfectly reasonable answers given to your question, and ridiculing any answers given to you, only for you to to come back and continue to make the same demands, IS trolling.

No, to you not thinking as you do is trolling.

Sorry, but I don't simply take anyone's answers as "proof". Just because YOU think that listing well-known background factoids and polls which are meaningless this far out are indicators of a candidate's potential for success are evidence, I don't have to. Your definition of trolling is that someone has higher standards than old photos of crowds.

“Where did I do that” Right here: “odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “

LOL THAT's your big evidence of my bashing people? That I pointed out that people are always quoting polls when they're favorable to their view, and trashing them when they're not? WOW how awful! LOL!

You really need to stop with the victim posing.

You demanded to know

That's the second time you've used this silly characterization of my simple question as my DEMANDING anything. I asked a question--I demand nothing of anyone. Man, stop with the boohoo stuff and stick to the actual points.

,i> why Plain can win in 2012, and refused to accept all answers given to you.

Because the answers don't meet my standard. Sorry if that offends your tender sensibilities, but tough.

This is your post # 7: "What I think is that for all the love for Palin, I’m looking for actual evidence that she can win a presidential race"

Wow, what a trolling question.

I asked you to tell us why Palin cannot win in 2012. I am yet to hear even one answer from you, let alone a good one.

Because you are attempting to derail my simple request for answers of her POSITIVES. YOU are the one who wants to bring up negative comments about her, while I want to read good, solid information and reasons.

So--which of us is the real troll?

Yet you have continued to ridicule every attempt at answering your question, even while rfeusing to make any attempt to answer question asked you. Figures.

Sorry, I won't fall for your silly tactic of derailing my request for positives about Palin. Deal, and stop whining about "ridicule" when that's all you've brought to this thread.

Plenty of posters in this thread have given you good, very pertinent facts, only for you to dismiss them out of hand.

Because they are not good or pertinent in my view. I asked the question, and I get to decide for myself what I find satisfying. Sorry if my not having your low standards offends you so.

Meanwhile, you are yet to supply even one fact or answer any questions posed to you. You are the one with the emotional problem here.

Yet you keep repeating this same point over and over and over again.

And again--sorry, I won't stop asking for positives about Palin's chances and let you turn this into yet another re-iteration of the barriers in Palin's way because you're afraid of serious debate and want another excuse for more boo-hooing and whining and posing.

You are STILL dodging the question. As a matter of fact, you are yet to answer any question posed to you at all.

(Looking at all my answers.) O...kay...

If anything, there is a pretty good chance chance that this poll is biased AGAINST Sarah Plain, not for her.

So you keep quoting as "proof" a biased poll.

And then you ask over and over why I don't trust this as evidence.

So if anything, Sarah Plain is probably doing better than in this poll. Plus I backed it up with the Gallup poll, which has Sarah Plain solidly ahead of any other GOP candidate for 2012, in favourability amongst Republicans.

In other words, you're doing exactly what I said you were doing--quoting polls when they support your view, and dismissing them when they don't.

Any poll that is a bad/biased poll is ALWAYS bad or biased. If this poll is rigged as you say, then gee, wouldn't this result be the perfect one for them to later point to as "proof" of their not being biased--"Hey, look here, she was ahead in our poll, so you can't say we're biased"? And if she falls in this poll, are you going to point to it as suddenly NOT something to look to for evidence?

Just to be clear, PPP is a Democratic Party supporting outfit (they don't even make that a secret do they?). Their polls will if anything, more likely to tilt AGAINST Sarah Palin. Get it?

You most definitely do NOT get it.

But seeing as you keep demanding for reasons why Palin might not win, and are pointing to the PPP poll as evidence of her chances, you're certainly helping out the trolls you supposedly are so, so worried about. ;)

So why do you keep responding to this “troll” instead of offering the tons of evidence you must have that will answer my very simple question

Disinformation attempts by determined, paid trolls on FR need to be quashed, no matter where they come from. And like I kep saying, your so-called “simple question” has been repeatedly answered already, by plenty of posters in this thread.

“Doesn't impress me anymore than it ever has—”

Like I said before, you are not looking for any answers at all.
Your purpose here is to troll Sarah Palin threads with an anti-Palin agenda, while ostensibly appearing to be looking fr “facts”. The facts have been repeatedly suplied to you, but you..you don't want to facts do ya?

“I have no doubts about Palin’s popularity with Republicans, but this isn't an election against Republicans only, it's also going to be against Obama.”

You have already been given Sarah Palin’s head to head polls aginwst 0bamna, where she is running neck and neck with the Kenyan Marxist..and..the poll was even from an anti-Palin, pro-Democratic Party outfit.

“Sorry, but I don't simply take anyone’s answers as “proof”.”

FACT: You don't really want any answers do you?
Your purpose in this thread is to troll and push an anti-Palin agenda isn't it?

“Just because YOU think that listing well-known background factoids and polls which are meaningless this far out are indicators of a candidate's potential for success are evidence, I don't have to”

If solid very pertinent facts, and polls from even the opposition that show Sarah Palin with very solid chances in 2012 are “meaningless”, pray tell us, what is meaningful then?
We are talking about a guy here (YOU), who is yet to present even ONE FACT, to support his idiotic contention that Sarah Palin is not a viable candidate for 212, despite repeated attempts from me for you to come up with ANYTHING. And this same guy is dismissing solid facts an evidence out of hand with nothing to back it up?
Will you excuse me while I laugh..at you?

“That's the second time you've used this silly characterization of my simple question as my DEMANDING anything. I asked a question—I demand nothing of anyone”

You question has been repeatedly answered, with excellent, cogent, very pertinent answers, by several posters in this thread, including me. . That hasn't stopped you from dismissing every answer out of hand(with no valid reason given from you), and coming right back to demand answers to your already answered questions, and to continue trolling anyways.

“Because you are attempting to derail my simple request for answers of her POSITIVES”

Now we get to the crux of the matter don't we?
Positives on Sarah Palin in a thread that you are trolling in, are “derailing”? Since when? You are one sick puppy.
Listen, you did NOT start this thread. You don't own this thread. You came into the thread, and attempted to hijack the thread with your anti-Palin trolling.
If anyone is derailing the thread, its you.

“YOU are the one who wants to bring up negative comments about her, while I want to read good, solid information and reasons”

You may be boss in your own house, clown face. Here on FR, you are just another laughably inept troll. If you demand answers from other posters, you darn well be prepared to answer when they throw your questions right back at ya.

“So—which of us is the real troll?”

You need to be told that too?
Go through the thread again, and see who the troll is on this thread.

“Sorry, I won't fall for your silly tactic of derailing my request for positives about Palin. “

You have reportedly been given the positives. I have even supplied you with polls from the opposition poling outfit, and you still refuse to face reality and continue with your insane anti-Palin trolling anyways.

“Because they are not good or pertinent in my view. “

When everyone else thinks they are very pertinent, and the sole troll with an anti-Palinn agenda continues to insist that clearly pertinent points and facts, are not pertinent, guess who needs to go see a shrink here?

“I asked the question, and I get to decide for myself what I find satisfying.”

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

“Sorry if my not having your low standards offends you so.”

Its truer t o say, you have ZERO standards. Your business here is to push the “Sarah Palin cannot win in 212” meme, while ridiculdimng every and any proof that Freepers bring up that proves the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

“So you keep quoting as “proof” a biased poll”

If an outfit like say, Daily Kos (which has even had to admit their polls are biased for the Democrats) publishes a poll, in which say Blanche Lincoln(D) is losing in AR US Senate race, we know for sure that Blanche Lincoln is losing big, because we know Kos has already tilted their polls for the Democrat, and Lincoln is still down even after the numbers have been cooked.
One can learn plenty even from a biased poll, depending on what party the poll is baised for, and what party they are against, and what other similar polls say.

“In other words, you're doing exactly what I said you were doing—quoting polls when they support your view, and dismissing them when they don't”

I quoted two polls. BOTH were very favorable to Sarah Palin, so which poll you babbling about again?

“Any poll that is a bad/biased poll is ALWAYS bad or biased”

If I tell ya, I added 10 points to the numbers of the Democrat in a particular poll, one can use that to deduce what the real numbers are like.
Back in January, when Daily Kos came out with polls that had Martha Coakley winning in MA, even while the other pollsters had Scott Brown winning solidly, we were able to deduce by how much Kos was cooking his numbers.

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.