Posted on 09/03/2011 1:59:15 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Sarah Palin said it is important whom Republicans choose to run against President Obama, but didn’t directly address whether she’ll join the 2012 presidential race during her much-anticipated speech before a tea party crowd in Iowa on Saturday.
The former Republican governor of Alaska and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee referenced the 2012 election many times throughout her remarks, calling out the “permanent political class,” “crony capitalism” and “entrenched political interests.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
To me, it's obvious that people like you have an irrational dislike of anybody who doesn't want other GOP candidates smeared by Palinbots such as you. My thought is it actually harms Palin in the eyes of others, but none of you seem willing to accept this observation.
I didn’t and don’t agree with Carlson. What’s your glitch, quasi-pissant?
Not everybody...
So, now I'm a "Palinbot", and by implication (yours) I'm smearing other candidates? Nice. You've just confirmed my previous estimation of your intellectual maturity.
I think we're done here, Carling.
True dat.
Yes, her hardcore supporters will do whatever it takes. All it requires is one topic on a Palin friendly website for people to spam a poll. Heck, we used to Freep polls all the time right here. Don't tell me you don't believe people will spam them if they are designed in such a way that is possible.
You cited a garbage, unscientific poll, stop defending it. You just make yourself sound ridiculous.
The polling business is corrupt.
Nonsense. Of course there are some media sponsored polls to be skeptical of. But almost all polling regarding Governor Palin show the same thing - even from pollsters with a good track record, Palin is not popular and most Republicans simply do not want her to run.
There are lots of other ways to measure and gauge voter opinion. You'd be better served if you used them.
No, there actually isn't. You can't gauge voter opinion based on crowds or fanatical supporters. If that were true, McGovern would have beat Nixon in 72'. Ron Paul has fanatical support among his followers. They show up at every straw poll, send in a boat load of money, spam forums endlessly, yet the truth is Ron Paul has zero chance of ever winning the GOP nomination because despite his highly energetic and vocal supporters - he just isn't very popular and polls prove this.
What is equally dense is that the palinite cadre here seems to actually believe that tens of millions of American voters will rush out to Walmart to pick up the DVD and will then experience a 'Paul on the road to Damascus' revelation about Palin's(™) unavoidable destiny to lead us.
If what you say is true, how is it that Sarah Palin isn't in first place in every poll, scientific, or otherwise? You can't have it both ways. Either Palin's supporters are "spamming" every poll with her name in it, or they are not. Which is it?
You cited a garbage, unscientific poll, stop defending it.
First of all, I don't accept your premise of what's scientific, and what is not. It's been proven time and again on this site that so-called "scientific" polls are routinely massaged and manipulated in such a way, as to produce a desired result. That's a fact, and takes the air out of your theory, which is what you're apparently basing your entire opinion of Palin on.
As for your casual disregard for every other observable metric for measuring a candidate's popularity, that's simply your attempt to fend off other forms of measurable data that threaten to put the lie to your assertions.
Do what you like. Trust the poll meisters to tell you the truth if you must, but in my opinion, they're as compromised as the MSM.
Here’s another one of those metrics I spoke of:
Tea Party Express: Manchester NH/ Sarah Palin speech: LIVE THREAD....... 546 posts
LIVE: Tim Scott Hosts Gov. Rick Perry Live (South Carolina)Thread........ 80 posts
Ignore these sorts of observations if you will, but you’re only narrowing your vision.
What? Palin isn't currently leading in any scientific poll at all. Because her supporters spam an online poll means nothing. Some online polls will be spammed by paulbots, some by supporters of other candidates. No online, unscientific poll means anything.
You posted the results of some garbage unscientific NR poll that is easily spammed and are still trying to defend it. That was not a scientific poll at all, in fact no online polls are actually useful in gauging real popular opinion. Further, I've seen the results of that completely unscientific poll spammed by Palin supporters on other sites too - almost word for word with the way your arguing on its behalf here.
First of all, I don't accept your premise of what's scientific, and what is not. It's been proven time and again on this site that so-called "scientific" polls are routinely massaged and manipulated in such a way, as to produce a desired result. That's a fact, and takes the air out of your theory, which is what you're apparently basing your entire opinion of Palin on.
You can dispute it all your want, but taking all poll results together you can get a pretty good picture of what and who the public supports. Almost all polls are showing Perry leading as the GOP front runner, so it is likely Perry is leading. Almost all polls show Palin has very high negatives and most Republicans do not want her to run. One poll you can dismiss, but taken together they can give you a pretty good idea of what is going on.
Dismissing polls is what people do when they don't like the results.
As for your casual disregard for every other observable metric for measuring a candidate's popularity, that's simply your attempt to fend off other forms of measurable data that threaten to put the lie to your assertions.
The fanaticism of a politicians followers is simply not a good metric of whether that person has broad appeal or is particularly popular over all. If it were, Ron Paul would be well on his way to being our next President, but we know that isn't true at all.
Longbow, I’ve made my choice. In fact, I made that choice before the 2008 presidential race was over, and it has never wavered.
Support who you want. Believe what you want. I’m voting for Palin in 2012 — just like I did three years ago.
Governor Palin is going to enthusiastically endorse, campaign for and support the eventual GOP nominee. If your talking about writing her name in as a 3rd party, not only would you be wasting your ballot but you'd be ignoring her request that you vote for the actual Republican candidate for president.
Mirror mirror on the wall
Lend me Longbow's crystal ball...
You and a handful of other PDSers repeat that like it's some sort of voodoo mantra, but only Sarah knows for sure.
We Palin supporters are 99.9% sure that she's running, based on everything we've seen her say and do over the last year. I have no idea what your crowd bases your conclusion on, except perhaps wishful thinking.
If I were you, I'd let it rest for a couple of weeks. She's said that she's going to inform the public of her intentions toward the latter half of this month. You don't have much longer to wait.
Maybe you don't understand how campaigns work? Other than hinting that she might have the fire in the belly to run, she has done absolutely nothing to prepare for an actual campaign. Zilch. She has no infrastructure in place, no state organizations ready to roll, no fundraising operation in place, etc. Yes, yes, I know you think she's going to run an "unconventional campaign", but I can tell you from having worked around this stuff my entire adult life that she will need to do all the retail politicking and organizational stuff every other candidate has to do. Relying on Facebook posts and hoping hit and run bus stops will garner her high profile media coverage after the first few weeks is a pipe dream.
I have no idea what your crowd bases your conclusion on, except perhaps wishful thinking.
I only speak for myself, but knowing something about this stuff is enough for me to conclude she is not running. I thought she would after the 2008 loss, I thought she was the natural candidate for this cycle, I fully supported her for the longest time. But then it became clear she was not doing the actual hard work it requires to be a successful presidential candidate. Reality TV and showing up various places to steal the spotlight from others just doesn't cut it.
If I were you, I'd let it rest for a couple of weeks. She's said that she's going to inform the public of her intentions toward the latter half of this month. You don't have much longer to wait.
You know you are right, I have no way of knowing. Perhaps she plans to attempt something so "unconventional" that I simply don't see it. I don't buy this "unconventional" campaign stuff, and I find it impossible to believe serious advisers would lead her to believe it would work - but it is possible she is an echo chamber of "yes" people who convince her this could work.
I'd have loved to see her run a serious presidential campaign. I hoped for that very thing, but instead she seems to have just squandered much of the conservative support she had by teasing this "may or may not" run stuff for far too long. Republicans have simply grown sick of it and as a result her negatives continue rising within the party you argue she wants to represent as a presidential candidate.
Come on, Longbow. You're here every day. Surely you must have seen all of the references and links to Organizing4Palin on the site? They have chapters up and running in all 50 states, and in some states like Iowa, every county. Her campaign infrastructure is already in place, so that's a non-issue.
As far as donations go, on the day that she announces, she's going to set a fundraising record. She's going to get millions of donations in small amounts, right up to the legally allowable contribution.
She's also unafraid of being out-spent by her competitors. She's been out-spent in every race she's ever run in, but what got her the votes was her message and her character. That beats hundreds of slick TV ads every time, when it's genuine. And they don't come more genuine than Sarah Palin.
Sounds to me like you're trying to evaluate what she's doing through the old programming of the status quo, and not figuring in the revolutionary time period we're in, and how well she represents that. Underestimate her ability to break the mold and win, at your own risk. She was made for such a time as this.
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.