Palin trails Obama in red Tennessee

Politico ^ | 2/7/11 | Maggie Haberman

[pissant]

Sarah Palin's big problems among the GOP faithful are on clear display in a new poll that shows large numbers of Republicans aren’t sure about her and the tea party darling trails President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup in Tennessee — even with the president's job approval numbers running low in the state.

The poll in the solidly red state where she and McCain crushed Obama by 15 points two years ago is a warning bell that Palin, despite her following and appeal to conservatives, remains fairly radioactive to some Republican voters, who are far from convinced she can win in 2012.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

LMAO

[Psalm 144]

“Any Republican who become the defacto point person will face the same systematic attempt to marginalize as was done to Quayle,Gingrich, Bush, Reagan, Limbaugh or anybody else.”

Exactly.

“Borked” as they used to chortle and gloat.

[gopno1]

You are exactly right. I have no doubt Palin could win a majority of conservatives and Republicans. Unfortunately it takes WAY more than that to win a national election. If she runs, we will find out.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I call this “poll” BULLSHIT! This poll is deliberately deceptive in order to try to demoralize Palin supporters and to poison the voter pool against Palin.

Here are a few facts about Tennessee:

Tennessee went solidly for McCain in ‘08. Not only that, we have only 2 Rat representatives (Nashville and Memphis) and no Rat Senators. In the last election, three Rats lost their House seats to Republicans including one seat that had gone to a Rat for 32 years (and I have no idea how long the Rats held it before then).

In the state races, the GOP picked up 2 more seats in the state Senate for a total of 19-14 R to D ratio and picked up something like 15 MORE Republican seats in the state House for a total of 65-33-1 R to D to I count.

Does THIS sound like a state that would choose Obastard over Palin? Not only no but HELL NO!

[Forty-Niner]

“-—Two years out President H.W. Bush had a 92% approval rating...yet he lost.-—

Two years out from what? Bush’s approval hit 92% in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - Three years from the 2004 election. Two years prior to the ‘04 vote he was at 65% and two years prior to the ‘08 election he was hovering around 35%.”

Helps to read the post ...............

HW Bush is Pappy Bush (1992)....Who had a 92% Job approval because of the First Gulf War in Kuwait....... This overwhelming popularity was turned around by a shallow cyclical resession, and the mumblings of Ross Perot that split the conservative vote thereby handing the leection to Clinton who gained the Presidency with a mere plurality......

[TexasCajun]

Thank You Sir! ...May I Have Another!

[MortMan]

I cannot join you in shouting out my willingness to accept whatever candidate the media and the dems can foist on us. There is a bottom line necessary to get my support. An ardent opponent of the 1st amendment, who also champions amnesty and cap-and-trade, doesn’t fit that bill. Neither does the former governor who signed and defends to this day the nation’s first statewide socialist medicine plan. Neither does the former governor of a small state with big-state governmental spending habits.

I have minimum standards for supporting a candidate. I have never espoused the 100% - or even 90% - frame of mind, but I do have a few “must have” issues.

According to you, I have to abandon those principles if the party fields a candidate who goes against them.

I’d say you need to look the word “principle” up again.

I am not - let me say that again *I AM NOT* - a Palin=or-nobody voter. I have not chosen who I will throw my support to - in large part because nobody has even officially entered the ring. BUT, I do know several potential candidates I cannot support.

And shouting at me that my adherence to core principle is the reason why the GOP loses elections is laughable. After all, such truths prevented Reagan from ever being elected in the first place, and he never got 49 states in his reelection campaign, either.

[fluffdaddy]

The Iran hostage crisis began a full year before election day. Carter's failure to deal with it was a given throughout the campaign season. Even so he looked like a winner over Reagan. The NYT editorial page gassed on about how events in Iran proved we couldn't afford a clodhopper like Reagan in the White House. Six months before election day, the smart money said the hostage crisis would work to Carter's advantage because voters wouldn't trust an untried simpleton with the leadership of a turbulent world.

In the end the crisis certainly contributed to the sense that Carter was a failure, but he would have been judged a failure without it because he was a failure. He couldn't hide it and Obama won't be able to either. The lesson of 1932, 1968 and 1980 is that failed presidents lose. The events of each case will be different, but falure in office nearly always means failure at the ballot box.

It doesn't much matter whom the GOP nominates. The election is Obama’s to lose and right now I'd say he's doing a great job of losing it.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Tennessee ain't Communist, and this poll is pure bull$hit.

Not the only BS poll this week. Other polls just came out showing Palin losing South Carolina, South Dakota, and Nebraska to No Hope and No Change in a general election. I mean, seriously, does anyone buy that Palin has been made so radioactive that states she's in for a Goldwater-like loss, at a time when liberalism is at a much lower ebb than in 1964?

[t-dude]

I’m sorry, it’s hard to keep all the Bush’s straight.

Thanks for your information on W.’s numbers, he was not the Bush I was talking about. I referenced poppa Bush. My point stands.

I was speaking about poll numbers two years out from the next presidential election. The two examples I used show how meaningless they can be.

My point is, people should not base who they support on what some polls are saying now, as they are easily manipulated to get whatever result is wanted, and this far out the public’s opinion can change dramatically.

People putting a lot of stock in opinion polls need to watch this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgyKpkLpccE

[piytar]

“That’s what I’ve been saying. Palin has the right stand on the issues, but the media will do to Palin what they did to Goldwater in ‘64, but on steroids. Obama won’t be running against Palin, he’ll be running against a media-generated caricature of Palin, and the sheeple will buy it, just like they did LBJ’s line of BS in ‘64.”

OK, but that will be true of ANY conservative candidate. So our choices are (1) let the LSM pick our candidate, a CINO “moderate” like MittCare Romney or (2) ignore the push-polls, PDSers, and LSM, choose our own candidate, and try to pull a Reagan-style win that counts for something.

I choose (2). People such as pissant clearly choose (1). What do you choose?

[edge10]

I’m sure Duncan Hunter would pull his usual 1-2% in this poll.

[chimera]

I choose (2). People such as pissant clearly choose (1). What do you choose?

Well, since you asked, FWIW, I choose to support our candidate, whoever that ends up being (unless they are a pro-abort, then I will probably not vote the top of the ticket).

[chimera]

The Iran hostage crisis began a full year before election day. Carter's failure to deal with it was a given throughout the campaign season. Even so he looked like a winner over Reagan. The NYT editorial page gassed on about how events in Iran proved we couldn't afford a clodhopper like Reagan in the White House. Six months before election day, the smart money said the hostage crisis would work to Carter's advantage because voters wouldn't trust an untried simpleton with the leadership of a turbulent world.

Early in the crisis it was a rallying point for the electorate as a whole and that usually shows up as a bump up for the President in office. As the crisis dragged on and it became clear that Carter was incapable of dealing with it effectively, people lost confidence in him and Reagan's reassuring performance in the debates sealed the deal. Throw in the lousy economy and Carter was perceived as a failure in three different ways. If Obama avoids a repeat performance and the economy picks up to the point of the (reported) unemployment rate dropping into the 6-7% range, it will be a different ballgame than 1980.

I said in '08 that Obama was a dangerous candidate and we underestimate him at our peril. I think it will be that way in '12. He'll have the power of incumbency and a media that is even more of an obsequious lickspittle lapdog than it is now, if that's possible. But there is one parallel to 1980 that is valid. Like with Reagan, whoever we nominate will have to have a broad national appeal, run a pretty much flawless campaign, and avoid making stupid statements and doing foolish things that hand the 'Rats and the media more hammers they can use to beat them to a pulp.

[Oak Grove]

It is my opinion that Karl Rove is behind these phony polls that report that Sarah Palin cannot defeat Obama.

Rove spent his years as the White House political advisor doing all that he could to defeat conservatives from winning Republican nominations.

With millions of dollars in his Crossroads PAC, it sure looks like he is a shadowy hand working against Sarah.

[fluffdaddy]

The election won't be about the Republican candidate. It most certainly won't be about how flawlessly he or she campaigns.

Reagan said any number of things the press perceived as gaffs during the 1980 campaign. He was ridiculed and pilloried relentlessly. Books were written about what a fool he was — “Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error,” etc. Reagan was advertised as a terribly weak candidate, a patsy tailor made for Carter. He was the nominee of a divided party with a “moderate” Republican running as a third party candidate because his appeal was supposed to be so narrow. The left was uniformly of the opinion that Reagan had embarrassed himself in the debates. He won anyway because Carter was a failure.

What was the difference between Reagan and Goldwater? Was it that Goldwater was a poor campaigner and Reagan was a good one? Hardly. “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice” is among the best phrases ever deployed by an American politician. It fell flat, along with the rest of the Goldwater campaign, because in 1964 America was still in the grip of a progressive consensus left over from the 1930’s. We weren't ready for an alternative. By 1980 the progressive consensus had broken down. The smart guys had failed, comprehensively. It wasn't just stagflation or the hostage crisis or even the combination. The left had promised that it would make everything work smoothly and everything was falling apart.

Every election with an incumbent President running is a referendum on the incumbent. Reagan won in 1980 because he convinced most people that he was a plausible President and Carter, having been weighed in the balance and found wanting, no longer was. When the President fails the challenger has a low bar to clear. When he doesn't the challenger's bar is out of reach.

Anybody who can win the Republican nomination will easily clear the plausible president bar when the time comes, whatever the polls say now, just as Reagan did. Trying to pick the most electable candidate is a fool's game. Electability will depend on circumstances beyond anyone’s control.

Obama is looking at a perfect storm of inflation, low growth, high unemployment and diminishing American influence around a very dangerous world. When people next give any thought to whether they want him in the White House, most are likely to conclude that they don't. Until they think about that question asking them what they think about it will not yield any useful information.

Support the candidate that you think would make the best leader for the conservative movement, the Republican Party and the country. Electability isn't worth another thought.

[2ndDivisionVet]

To: 1rudeboy
Unless the last name is Thatcher, slim chance I’d be pushing a chick for prez.

11 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 1:17:04 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: 1rudeboy
Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.

13 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 1:20:02 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2557810/posts?page=13#13

*********

Plus this thread:

The Atheist Antidote: Sarah Palin & The Liberal Psyche (You must see this video!!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2669682/posts

[chimera]

The left was uniformly of the opinion that Reagan had embarrassed himself in the debates.

Probably the usual 30% hard-core liberal left. My guess is that almost all 'Pubs and a sizable majority of independents thought Reagan did okay. I thought his "Are you better of today than you were four years ago? Is America more respected around the world today than it was four years ago?" was an absolutely brilliant stroke, and it devastated any arguments Carter and the 'rats could have offered.

He won anyway because Carter was a failure.

No question about that. Will Obama be perceived likewise in two years? I guess we'll see.

[eyedigress]

Obama is toast. Appealing to the Chamber of Commerce to hire more people isn’t a very good economic strategy. Doofus doesn’t get it.

[Rational Thought]

Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.

LOL, I guess he figures it's like a woman's prerogative to change her mind.