Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
My favorite is still Palin, but her negatives are in the 50s and positives are only in the 20s.

Considering she's in private life and not running for anything, how'd they do that except by innuendo and direct abuse and libel? Assuming arguendo for ten seconds that anything that bozo is telling us is within 15 parsecs of correct.

The assumption GOP establishmentarians and traitorous 'Rat-bastards alike want conservatives to accept, seems to be that Sarah Palin couldn't turn their boasted polling "data" around with the exposure of a political campaign, working her own crowds and speaking at her own engagements. She's toast, it's over before it starts, done deal, ha ha fixed you you punks.

So far what people have mostly seen is the cast of SNL and a couple of McCainiac/Romneybot-scripted campaign appearances. I think Sarah on the campaign trail would be able to war down a lot of that stuff and paint her own picture.

So, all that aside, who does this infantile Moonbat think the GOP "ought" to nominate ("anybody but Palin", of course) if the Pubbies "really" want to win?

Keeping in mind that Jonathan Alter, with a straight face, told Pubbies in 1995 that they had really better get serious about nailing down the nomination for Bob Dole ultra-early, since only Uncle Bob had the gravitas, the real-world realness to rescue the GOP from silliness, irrelevancy, and oblivion (i.e. the then-current MSM campaign of personal destruction they were waging on Newt, Rush, and Dole).

Of course, Alter knew that Dick Morris and Bill Clinton had already poll-tested all the GOP hopefuls to death (with their traitorous Chinese reptile money), and their data showed Dole as the weakest candidate and Slick's best matchup.

And we know how 1996 turned out. It turned out that 1996 was over sometime in 1995, the instant the Republicans believed the crap Alter was telling them.

20 posted on 03/11/2011 3:32:41 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
Clinton spent a huge amount of money on generic anti-Republican advertising in key states before the 1996 campaign opened (this went under radar because they didn't spend any in the states they were already sure of like New York and California). Then Dole had to use all his primary taxpayer-supplied campaign money to get the nomination (fending off people like Steve Forbes who had endless amounts of money but no chance of being elected)...so Dole was broke until the Republican convention.

Dole was a poor campaigner against one of the most skillful campaigners ever but kept Clinton under 50% of the popular vote. I don't know if anyone else who ran in 1996 would have done better.

31 posted on 03/11/2011 8:07:48 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson