69% of GOP Voters Say Palin Helped McCain (Favorability among Republicans: ***91%***!!!)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 11/07/08 | Staff

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.

These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

The key for the 44-year-old Palin will be whether she can broaden her base of support. An Election Day survey found that 81% of Democrats and, more importantly, 57% of unaffiliated voters had an unfavorable view of her.

Palin, Alaska’s first woman governor, was elected to a four-year term in 2006. She was largely unknown nationally until McCain chose her to be the party’s vice presidential candidate. She quickly became a darling of the GOP’s conservative base and energized the party’s rank-and-file.

Speculation about her future has run high for weeks when it appeared Barack Obama was likely to beat McCain. Already this week there is talk of her possibly taking the seat of embattled Republican Senator Ted Stevens if he manages to hang on and win won reelection despite recent federal felony convictions. Stevens would have to step down if his appeal of the convictions is unsuccessful.

Palin could also run for another term as Governor in the state where she still enjoys very high approval ratings.

Among Republicans, 66% of men and 61% of women say Palin is their choice for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-six percent (66%) of GOP women have a Very Favorable view of her, as do 64% of men.

While Palin’s high favorables suggest she has a bright political future in the Republican Party, it is important to note that favorites four years out from a presidential election quite often do not get the nomination. Obama, for example, was just an Illinois state senator four years ago, and Hillary Clinton appeared a shoo-in for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Similarly, vice presidential candidates historically have seldom risen to the highest office by election.

Republicans are closely divided over the two most important issues in the next presidential election: 31% say economic issues, 30% say national security. Fifteen percent (15%) list fiscal issues, followed by cultural issues (12%) and domestic issues (6%). Five percent (5%) are undecided. Palin is overwhelmingly the top choice for 2012 among voters in all these categories.

Over two-thirds of Republicans describe themselves as conservative in terms of foreign policy, fiscal and social issues.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Huckabee, including 46% Very Favorable. Sixteen percent (16%) regard him unfavorably.

Eighty-one percent (81%) view Romney favorably, with 45% Very Favorable. Fifteen percent (15%) have an unfavorable opinion of him.

Jindal, Pawlenty, and Crist are far less known than the other candidates. Roughly 40% of GOP voters have no opinion one way or the other of these three Republican Governors.

[Polybius]

Unfortunately, Independents didn’t have the same opinion and that helped us lose the election.

"Moderate" Republicans demanded (and were given) carte blanche opportunity to demonstrate, once and for all, that they knew how to win at the national level, this year. They got exactly the candidate they wanted. They got exactly the party platform they demanded. The campaign was run exactly the way they insisted it be run. How'd that end up working out for us, again...?

We did everything the RINO way this year, exactly the way the "moderates" wanted it, down to the last mewled syllable of their squishy, mealy-mouthed sock puppet's last apologetic campaign commercial.

Look, guys, it's time to get a reality check here.

"Moderate" Republicans or "Conservative" Republicans or "(Insert label here) Republicans" are no longer in control of anything.

See Post 312. Independents are in control and "Independents" are not merely a faction. "Independents" far outnumber ALL Republicans put together.

America, right now, is split down the middle between "left of center" and "right of center". Millions of voters today were not even alive when Ronald Reagan left office. Millions more voters have long forgotten how it was to live with the economy going down the toilet under Jimmy Carter.

Tens of millions of voters TODAY only know that the economy is going down the toilet RIGHT NOW and, for the past eight years a Republican President that has claimed to be conservative was in the White House.

This year, the "Republican" name brand and the "conservative" name brand were as toxic as the brand name "liberal" was toxic in 1980. That's just the way the political pendulum swings.

So, this year, since "conservative" brand name is toxic to the majority of American voters and since the polar opposite of "conservative" must be good to the Democrat Sheeple brain, on the Democrat side, a one-term Senate Marxist is nominated.

So, this year, since "conservative" brand name is toxic to the majority of American voters, on the Republican side, a Moderate Republican is nominated with many right-of-center Independents voting in Republican primaries.

So, how do many "Conservatives" react to the choice between a Moderate Republican in the White House and a less than one-term Senate Marxist in the White House?

"McCain Is a RINO!!!! I will NEVER vote for a RINO!!!"

"I will NOT vote for the lesser evil!!!! I will throw away my vote by voting for that third party candidate listed between Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney!!!"

"I will not vote at all. I WILL STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY!!!!"

Look at the comments on these threads to the effect that, "If it were not for Palin, I would not have voted for the McCain ticket at all!"

EVEN WHEN FACED WITH A MARXIST, these "conservatives" were threatening to stay home because they would rather have a Marxist in the White House than have a RINO in the White House.

"Pick a conservative VP candidate that I adore or I will stay home and let a Marxist become President of the United States!"

So, what does McCain do?

McCain panders.

"We must pick a 100% conservative VP that the conservatives adore or they will blow their own brains out and I think they're crazy enough to do it!"

Not an unreasonable decision. George W. Bush's greatest failing was his ability to communicate effectively. A smart as a whip conservative would have gotten the RINO-haters to the polls and maybe even repaired the damage to the Conservative brand name.

Many choices were available.

Then McCain OVER-PANDERS.

"We also need to pick a WOMAN! Make sure she has experience, executive experience."

All of a sudden, the wide choice narrows down to one person:

Sarah Palin.

We complain about Obama having "no experience" and McCain goes and picks a VP candidate that, since only December 4, 2006, has been the Governor of a state that has less than one third of the population of Dade County, Florida.

Before that, she was the Mayor of a town now has a grand total of 9,780 residents. At the conclusion of Palin's tenure as mayor in 2002, the town had about 6,300 residents

She has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987.

Come on! Really!

Sarah Palin might be a very nice lady. She might fit right in here at Free Republic. We might love to have her as a next door neighbor.

However, the fact remains that Sarah Palin was WAAAAAAY in over her head as a potential major player on the national or international stage.

And it showed. It showed very painfully.

Does Sarah Palin Read?

If you still live in Seattle, you know that, even among Independent voters, Sarah Palin became the punchline of a joke.

Fairly or unfarly, to the 53% of all American voters with an UNFAVORABLE opinion of her, Sarah Palin has become a Dan Quail in a skirt.

Like Dan Quail, in regards to winning a future Presidential election, Sarah Palin is toast.

You will NOT win a Presidential election when 53% of the voters have an UNFAVORABLE opinion of you.

You just don't. That's not Rocket Science.

Sarah Palin was an Affirmative Action VP pick ("If we pick a woman, female voters will vote for her because she is a woman) just like Barack Obama was an Affirmative Action choice ("I am voting for Obama so I can say I voted for the first African-American President!").

Be brutally honest with yourself in answering these two questions.

If Barack Obama's father had been a white, blue eyed, Norwegian, graduate student named Bjorn Olsen who left him as a baby to be raised by a white American mother, would anybody give "Barry Olsen", white, blue eyed, ex-community organizer, first term Senator from Illinois, the slightest consideration as a serious Presidential candidate?

If Sarah Palin had been "Roger Palin", a man who was an ex-small town Mayor and then Governor of Alaska, a state with less than one third the population of Dade County, Florida, for less than two years, would anybody give the slightest consideration to Roger Palin as a serious VP candidate?

Can you truthfully answer, "Yes" to either of those two questions?

With the liberals now in power, dollars to donuts, things will go south unless Obama makes a sharp right turn towards the center.

If things get really bad, as they did with Jimmy Carter, then "liberal" will once again become the toxic brand name.

At such time, a conservative can win but it must be a serious candidate with serious preparation and experience for the job.

Just being conservative and cute will get you gushing reviews on FR but, unless you bring something else to the table, you will be an utter failure when you strive for electoral victory outside of your own little local political stomping grounds or outside your own little political fan club.

Case in point:

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

it's time to get a reality check here.

Agreed. Again: "Money talks, bull***t walks."

Your boy (McCain) and your floptastic electoral "strategy" -- i.e., sniveling and bellycrawling after phantom "moderates" and independents, while simultaneously excorciating the actual conservative voting base -- l-o-s-t LOST. You, he and it: all well and truly discredited.

Make certain to wave at me from your front row seat at the McCain Inauguration ceremony.

[Gondring]

“Independants” weren’t ever going to be drawn to McCain over Obama, not with the MSM shilling the way they did.

Not true. He squandered the opportunity to speak to the American people unfiltered--in the first two debates.

[Gondring]

“Independants” weren’t ever going to be drawn to McCain over Obama, not with the MSM shilling the way they did.

Not true. He squandered the opportunity to speak to the American people unfiltered--in the first two debates.

[mrsmith]

"If she is as smart as I think she is she will take some time to unwind and rest up and then start to network with conservative leaders in the GOP and work to reestablish conservative control of the party. This can be done and in fairly short order if it is started now while the party is in disarray and the RINOs are discredited. And if she does this she needs to reach out to the talk radio barons and to the rightwing blogosphere. "

Best post on the thread- and I read the whole thread.

She IS the nominee if she does the neccessary work (and any Republican candidate needs to do a whole lot of work).

[Theodore R.]

Nobody much thought Earl Warren in 1948 helped Thomas E. Dewey, but Eisenhower still put Warren on the Supreme Court, where he undermined American liberties. In the history of the decline and fall of the United States, there must be several chapters on “Republican” perfidity.

[Theodore R.]

That’s why I wish I had voted (for conscience sake) for Pat Buchanan against the perfidious GWB in 2000.

[Polybius]

"Money talks, bull***t walks."

You mean like the trillions of dollars in 401K wealth that has evaporated in the past few months during what the average American voters believes to be a "conservative" Republican Presidency?

All the average American voter knows is that his nest egg has exploded and they blame "conservatives" and "Republicans" for that. You still are clueless about the fact that, in America, THE POLITICAL PUBLIC OPINION PENDULUM SWINGS BACK AND FORTH and the rest of America is not the Free Republic echo chamber where we conservatives always win our own popularity contests by a landslide.

Outside of our own conservative choir, in 2008, both of the political brand names of "conservative" and "Republican" were lower in popularity among the average American voter than whale sh*t at the bottom of the ocean.

Your boy (McCain) and your floptastic electoral "strategy" -- i.e., sniveling and bellycrawling after phantom "moderates" and independents, while simultaneously excorciating the actual conservative voting base -- l-o-s-t LOST. You, he and it: all well and truly discredited. Make certain to wave at me from your front row seat at the McCain Inauguration ceremony.

The only two things that have been discredited are:

1) "Do it my way or we conservatives will boycott the election and allow a Marxist to win the White House.

2) Pandering to Identity Politics. ("Let's choose an inexperienced female to get the female vote!")

Look at the numbers:

Republicans constitute 27% of all voters and Conservative Republicans constitute 60% of all Republicans.

That means that "Conservative Republicans" constitute less than 17% of American voters. Yet, to the "More Conservative Than Thou Crowd", if the top of the national ticket was not conservative, you were going to pout and stay home on Election Day.

Well, McCain DID pick a conservative and you were ecstatic about his conservative choice and you still are. He pandered to your political threat to choose a conservative VP so you would not boycott the election, EVEN IN THE FACE OF A MARXIST.

Where McCain really messed up is that he pandered TOO much by the Identity Politics choice of a woman when there were NO female conservative choices for the VP slot that had the experience needed to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

If McCain had picked Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or anybody else that a serious person could at least claim was experienced on the national stage without lying, things might have turned out differently although, with trillions of 401K money being lost in the stock market over the past two months, even Ronald Reagan in his prime would have had a hard time selling "conservative" to the average American voter in 2008.

As it was, there were two candidates on the tickets that that had no experience to be truly qualified in regards to the Presidency: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

The voters chose the one that at least could hold his own against Katie Couric.

[Red Dog #1]

IMO the problem was with McCain’s campaign expecting her to go from 0 to 100 mph on national issues with no primary season warm up and a hostile press. They should have picked her a few months early and quietly “warmed” her up on national issues. She was great and it’ll be a lot more difficult for the press to beat her up again if she runs.

[Polybius]

"If she is as smart as I think she is she will take some time to unwind and rest up and then start to network with conservative leaders in the GOP and work to reestablish conservative control of the party. This can be done and in fairly short order if it is started now while the party is in disarray and the RINOs are discredited. And if she does this she needs to reach out to the talk radio barons and to the rightwing blogosphere. "

Best post on the thread- and I read the whole thread. She IS the nominee if she does the neccessary work (and any Republican candidate needs to do a whole lot of work).

Okay, so Palin then wins the Republican nomination in 2012 and is in total control of a Republican Party that appeals only to conservative Republicans and is headed by an individual that has a national UNFAVORABLE rating of 53% right now.

What then?

Lose the 2012 Presidential Election 27% to 73%?

Of all the people in the Republican Party, are there no better candidates for 2012 than a woman that has been Governor since only December 4, 2006 of a state that has less than one third the population of Dade County, Florida who has been, fairly or unfairly, "Dan Quayled" to the point that, to over half of the American voters, "Sarah Palin" is synonymous with "the punchline of a joke".

[Polybius]

“Independants” weren’t ever going to be drawn to McCain over Obama, not with the MSM shilling the way they did. Independants have no soul and go with the flow as shown them by media sounbites. McCain never had a chance with them. .... Lakeshark

If what you said was true, then the final result would have been 73% for Obama and 27% for McCain.

I know of many Independents that were leaning McCain, even after the Palin choice was made.

Once it became known how little experience Palin had and after the disaterous interview with Katie Couric, those Independents went over to Obama.

Does Sarah Palin Read?

Palin at least brought the GOP voters out and made it a 5 point race, rather than the 15 point race it would have been without her.

In other words, many so-called "conservatives" were willing to stay home on Election Day and cut off their noses to spite their face because they would rather have a Marxist in the White House than a RINO in the White House.

That is truly pathetic.

Be that as it may, there had to be a better conservative choice than Palin.

Palin was chosen because she was the only conservative female Governor there was and I thought we conservatives were supposed to be against Affirmative Action.

As I noted in another post:

If Sarah Palin had been "Roger Palin", a man who was an ex-small town Mayor and then Governor of Alaska, a state with less than one third the population of Dade County, Florida, for less than two years, would anybody give the slightest consideration to Roger Palin as a serious VP candidate?

[mrsmith]

I repeat:
Best post on the thread- and I read the whole thread. She IS the nominee if she does the neccessary work (and any Republican candidate needs to do a whole lot of work).

Everyone's so emotional about this!

We've got some good candidates. Whichever can find an acceptable and promising way to an electoral victory will be the one who deserves our support.
It ain't going to be easy, and that way may be a surprise.
Hard work will be a large part of that way IMO.
Hey, if some other person does that neccessary work instead then they will be the nominee.
Governor Palin obviously has the momentum- 4 years out.
But it comes down to who can find a way and make it work. It was the best post because it was on that subject.

Frankly, it is silly to the point of dishonesty to pretend this is 2012 or that the situation in 2012 will be what it is now.
The Governor has shown the world she is an excellent candidate in a very difficult situation. But naturally I expect even better of her with more experience.
You want another candidate, good luck. Build them up.

[Lakeshark]

I think you're entirely wrong. Palin was not the problem.

McCain's lame response to the market drop and the economic crisis lost the election, period. Palin kept him in it rather than hurt him.

[Lakeshark]

He lost the election in the debates, in his response to the market crisis, and his unwillingness to go after Obama’s past. He simply did and said too little. He needed to be Patton instead of Bradley.

[Polybius]

I think you're entirely wrong. Palin was not the problem. McCain's lame response to the market drop and the economic crisis lost the election, period. Palin kept him in it rather than hurt him.

Palin was not THE problem but she was definitely A problem.

Maybe you live in a solid Red area where everybody loved Sarah but, elsewhere, among voters that were not Republicans (73% of all voters) Sarah Palin became, fairly or unfairly, the punchline to a joke.

This was not Palin's fault. McCain picked her, in spite of her inexperience, so McCain must shoulder the blame for any negative her inexperience and her very poor fund of knowledge brought to the ticket.

Face it, if you can't rattle off the names of 6 or 7 newspapers for Katie Couric, like any regular FR poster can, you are not reading from them online or from the paper copy. For the Governor of Alaska, that's fine. Politics are local. For a VP candidate, that is devastating and non-Republicans were horrified at the performance.

Even the very conservative daughter of a friend of mine from a family that has never voted for a Democrat President, ever, called her mother after the Katie Couric interview to say, "Mom! Palin was horrible in the interview with Katie Couric! Just horrible!!"

And, no, the daughter is not an Obama supporter. She is devastated that Obama won.

The question now is if Sarah Palin will be a winner or a loser in 2012 as the Presidential candidate.

It is my firm belief that a ticket with Sarah Palin at the head will be an electoral disaster of Biblical proportions.

Yes, the Republicans love her but Republicans constitute only 27% of all American voters and, today, 53% of all American voters have an UNFAVORABLE opinion of Sarah Palin and that is even before she has even been elected to any national office.

[Lakeshark]

McCain absolutely was the problem.

I honestly never saw the Couric interview, just figured they would try to make her look bad. She did just fine every time I saw her, and will do much better if she decides to run again.

She did very well in her debate, far better than McCain did in his. Best lines of the debates was hers. "Can I call you Joe?"and "in case you forgot, it was a war resolution" and quite a few more.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

If McCain had picked Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or anybody else that a serious person could at least claim was experienced on the national stage without lying, things might have turned out differently

*Yawn*

Once again, for all the slow children waaaaaaaay up there in the cheap seats: losers don't get to splutter, lecture or pontificate, without all the sober and non-retarded listeners in the audience pointing and giggling uncontrollably in response. That's because losers, by definition -- being losers -- lack the necessary credibility to effectively splutter, lecture or pontificate in the first place. Stamp your hoof twice, if any of this is sinking in yet.

Uncontested FACT: "Moderates" squishes got to run exactly the RINO candidate they most wanted. Said candidate ended up being solidly and unforgivably slaughtered in the electoral college by an empty suit of clothes with a nice, toothy smile. Credibility of RINO moderates on the topic of Proper Candidate Selection, as a logical and inevitable end result: 0.

Uncontested FACT: "Moderates" squishes got a campaign run precisely the way they (and their RINO candidate) desired, down to the last "honorable" detail. Said campaign couldn't even muster a piddling 150 electoral votes versus an aopen and unapologetic terrorist sympathizer whose hand-picked VP running mate believes FDR was President during the Great Depression and that "J-O-B-S" is a three-letter word. Credibility of RINO moderates on the topic of Proper Campaign Structure and Operation, as a logical and inevitable end result: 0.

Last time pays for all, kiddies: "Money talks, bull***t walks." When the Ford/Dole/McCain actually manages to WIN a presidential elction, the conservative voting base might actually start listening to the squish wing's increasingly tired snakeoil pitches without rolling our eyes and snorting.

Not one nano-second before, however. We have absolutely no good reason whatsoever to do so, after all.

You just continue to lose and lose and lose, each and every single time we (foolishly) allow you yet another opportunity to prove yourselves. You're the Seattle Mariners of American politics.

No one's listening. And that's no one's fault but your own.

[Polybius]

If McCain had picked Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or anybody else that a serious person could at least claim was experienced on the national stage without lying, things might have turned out differently

*Yawn* Once again, for all the slow children waaaaaaaay up there in the cheap seats: losers don't get to splutter, lecture or pontificate,

That's right. And "the losers" were YOU and every other so-called "conservative" with the common sense of a Labrador Retriever that threatened to stay home and allow a Marxist to gain the White House unless the candidates were exactly to your liking in an election year when the "conservative" brand name had been made toxic to the majority of American voters by George W. Bush.

* The Losers *

Uncontested FACT: "Moderates" squishes got to run exactly the RINO candidate they most wanted.

FACT: If the "Moderates" had had their way, Sarah Palin would still be a name that 99.5% of the American voters had never heard of. Although she was conservative, she was an unqualified Affirmative Action candidate if there ever was one. She still is.

Even FReepers watching the Palin-Couric interview thought that Palin "was awful during the Couric" interview.

Does Sarah Palin Read?

Palin Couric Interview & Upcoming VP Debate

And that was just FReepers. I have a laundry list of Independents ( you might hate Independents but they constitute 36% of the entire American electorate and they are allowed to vote whether you like it or not ) that I know of who were leaning McCain before the Palin choice put them firmly in the Obama camp.

That goes for the relatives of FReepers too:

I love Sarah but I’m worried that as far as he media - and their gotchitis - is concerned that she is too green and there isn’t enough time to get her up to speed. I have two female relatives who are upset at being presented with such an unqualified VP. Of course I had to point out their complaints could be applied to Obama but unfortunately Obama does quite a good job of covering himself up.

That is the defense of the Republican ticket that was left to us prior to the election, "Our VP candidate is unqualified for the Oval Office if McCain should die but your Presidential candidate candidate is unqualified for the Oval Office if he gets elected."

Did you ever crunch the numbers in the article that you yourself posted like I advised you to?

Obviously not.

If you had, you would have seen that the total UNFAVORABLE rating among the ENTIRE American electorate for Sarah Palin was 53%.

FIFTY THREE PERCENT UNFAVORABLE RATING!

That was not 53% saying "I like Coke more than I like Pepsi." That was 53% saying UNFAVORABLE as in, "I like Coke but I will never drink cod liver oil."

That was exactly the percentage of votes that Obama got: 53%

In case you have not figured it out, it is mathematically impossible to win any election when over 50% of the entire electorate has an UNFAVORABLE opinion of you and, there you are, like a 13 year old schoolboy with a crush on the Homecoming Queen, championing Sarah Palin, with a 53% UNFAVORABLE rating, to be the head of the 2012 ticket.

Even my Labrador Retriever has more common sense than that.

[scory]

Positives and negatives are not static and can be shifted up or down. In politics nothing is static.

Palin may not be the leader the GOP needs. But she may be exactly the leader. Who knows at this point? We do know that she rallied the base big time and shows talent as a speaker and so there is certainly potential there.

Nixon was a lost cause after losing the presidential race on 1960 and then losing the race for California governor in 1962. He also had pretty high negatives and the press hated him. I submit that Mrs. Palin is far more likeable than Mr. Nixon.

We should not take the definitions of politicians supplied by the leftist press as gospel but as what they are: propaganda. The GOP must work to neutralize this. They have done it in the past and it can be done again.

[SunkenCiv]

Mitt Romney: I’m no back stabber
Boston Herald | 11/8/2003 | Dave Wedge
Posted on 11/09/2008 3:27:03 PM PST by GVnana
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129023/posts

The Once and Future Hillary Clinton
Time | 11-5-08 | Karen Tumulty
Posted on 11/09/2008 3:39:35 PM PST by STARWISE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129029/posts