Posted on 09/02/2011 6:51:43 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
While Sarah Palin continues to stoke the fires and keep people guessing about her Presidential intentions, Republican voters seem to be speaking loud and clear:
All in all, most voters — 74 percent — think Palin should stay on the sidelines in 2012. Just 20 percent think she should run for president.
The groups most likely to support Palin running are white evangelical Christians (30 percent) and Tea Party members (28 percent). Still, majorities of those groups do not think she should run (62 percent and 66 percent respectively). In addition, 72 percent of conservatives, 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents think Palin should stay out.
Women (77 percent) are a bit more likely than men (71 percent) to say Palin should sit this one out.
Just among women, Republicans (26 percent) are more likely than independents (24 percent) and Democrats (15 percent) to think Palin should run.
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
Has there ever been a poll pitting Sarah against Hilary? If it were done without bias, might be interesting.
Nice, very nice. I’ve got my check already written out.
Are you one of those only Romney blah win blah blah white noise people?
That is the reason primaries are here to shake out who the party wants. Trumpet your candidate and then in the general vote obama outa office.
There is no logical reason why Sarah Palin should not run for President.
After she announces, polls like this will revert to their intrinsic value—nothing.
If they polled Freepers, or subscribers to Human Events, or people who have joined a Tea Party organization, they'd probably find 90+% want Palin to run.
But there are tens of millions of Republican registered voters who have never done any of those things.
Tens of millions.
So you see, that's your problem right there. Hang around at FR all the time, and it's easy to get suckered into the notion that Freepers are the majority of the GOP. We're a segment of a segment of a segment.
If Palin announced for the presidency and did well in the debates and discussions with prospective voters, those poll numbers would change in a hurry. Many people have an impression of Palin based on what the media has fed them...mostly negatively.
Yes, I am. Very.
I'm not aware that anyone has been told, "We forbid you to run in the presidential primaries".
My question is: How is it that she stays in third place in most polls, behind Perry and Romney and ahead of M. Bachman and she has not even announced yet?
Prove it!
You are right. And they want to mandate who Zero is running against. We say we want a conservative they serve up perry and say here. Knowing all along he is really establishment. He won’t Rick the boat with action. He is all talk and no action.
Then there are the wild cards like myself. I support another candidate but want her to get in the race to help defeat the silky haired RINOs.
If she harms my candidate, so be it. She’s still head and shoulders above the two “front runners”.
But at this moment I would be delighted with either Perry or Palin our candidate.
I am one of those” Obama has to go” guys. I also learned years ago not to cut off my nose to spite my face when I didn’t get the bike I wanted on Christmas.
I am beginning to believe the “Sara or no one” crowd is the progressive opposition crowd getting an early start.
Based on what? I don’t trust “feelings”.
Let me tell you something you may not know, simply because it is something that does not get discussed much.
Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, has selected our last 5 governments, and the last 3 Australian governments, thanks to his overwhelming control of the media in the two countries.
He decides who will best serve HIS interests, then his media empire slaps out the spin and the attack pieces and makes it happen.
Sounds to me like he is up to his old tricks with you guys now.
Don’t fall for it.
Oh Kay then. Have a nice day....
Do you really believe Nelson Rockefeller would have beaten LBJ? And in the unlikely event Rocky had won, what difference would it have made? More importantly though, you’re old enough to remember the 1980 election. We were urged then, too, to support paler colors.
Oddly enough, I think she is more effective *not* running for office. And this is a completely new paradigm.
The organizational structure most of us are familiar with, and have seen countless variations, can be called “hierarchical-patriarchal”. It has a clear, pyramid chain of command, from “generals to privates”, or from “CEO to workers”, or from “POTUS to voters”.
However, it is *not* the only form of effective organization.
The other major type of organization can be called “semi-hierarchical-matriarchal”, works just as well as a patriarchal structure, but is something alien to most of us as a concept, and harder to describe.
As an example of a simple form of matriarchal organization, look at Native American Indian tribes. Europeans and white Americans could never quite figure them out. It *assumed* that a tribal “chief” was the “boss”, because the assumption was that tribes had a patriarchal organization. But this was not the case.
Every warrior in the tribe was their own boss, ideas and plans were reached by consensus, and a “chief” was only a leader when other warriors chose to follow them, in an ad hoc manner, based on his effectiveness at persuading them to follow him, as a speaker.
So signing a treaty with a “chief” was pretty much meaningless, because that day he was a chief, and the next day he was just another warrior.
And fighting a tribe was incredibly hard, because they could not just “take out” its leaders as a means to defeat it. A “chief” could surrender, but it meant just him, not anyone else.
This matters, because of a fundamental truth: patriarchal organizations have no ability to deal with matriarchal organizations. They cannot reach agreements with them, nor can they fight them, because they only know how to interact with other patriarchal organizations.
This is why the government, the MSM, the Democrats, etc., have been utterly befuddled with the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is a matriarchal organization. (Let that sink in for a second). There are no real Tea Party “leaders”, except on an ad hoc basis. Any member of the Tea Party can speak “for” the Tea Party, but that carries no weight with other Tea Party members unless they agree with them.
This means that the MSM is finding it impossible to tear down the Tea Party with “the politics of personal destruction”, because there are no single persons to destroy. All they can do is ascribe increasingly ridiculous attributes to the organization *as a whole*.
And the same problem with the Democrats and leftists, who are themselves intensely hierarchical and rigid in their thinking. They cannot grasp the concept of the Tea Party, thinking that it is run by secret billionaires as its “masters”, like their own nefarious George Soros and his ilk.
So how does Sarah Palin enter into this?
As a non-candidate, not trying to take over the patriarchal US government, she is like the Indian “chief” Crazy Horse, able to keep the Tea Party riled up, but at the same time she is not part of “the system”, backing no candidate.
Thus, if it comes to her endorsing a RINO, she can do so, but it won’t matter because the Tea Party will not support a RINO, but if she supports a solid conservative, it will be a tremendously important endorsement, and may guarantee him the nomination.
And before and after, she can be a huge obstacle to Obama and the Democrats, as well as a lightning rod for the MSM, who seem to be impotent against her.
But it is not just her. Michelle Bachmann has a similar role, much like another Indian “chief”, say Geronimo, and the MSM are going bonkers trying to attack her. But it does not matter, it achieves nothing.
And most of the Republican candidates are also playing in this situation like other Indian chiefs. Yet their enemies, the Democrats, the leftists, and the MSM, cannot figure out who to attack, or who to try to endorse, figuring they would lose.
These hierarchical-patriarchal types are so stuck in their mindset, that they will be overcome and defeated by a different method of organization. Because of this, their loss is almost assured, and they won’t even know why they lost.
“Well, Sarah, I have news for you. Leaders are decisive and they MAKE UP THEIR FLIPPIN’ MINDS!!”
Sorry, but Sarah has already made up her mind way back in 2009. She just hasn’t told YOU yet.
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.