Posted on 02/10/2010 3:08:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin's raw talent is not unappreciated by me. What I don't get, however, is this undying belief that she could become president of the United States. The latest comes from Matt Lattimer at the Daily Beast. I won't fine-tooth "How Palin Could Win," except for Lattimer's last assertion.
The former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advises Palin to "remember political history." He continues,
"No actor can be elected president." "No First Lady can win a Senate seat in a state where she never lived." "No one-term senator can defeat Hillary Clinton." There are plenty more opportunities to prove those in the know wrong.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was an actor in the early days. But he served two terms as governor of California (1967 to 1975). Full terms, I might add. And he ran twice unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976 before he snagged it and the White House in 1980.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
And, that's a bad thing how?
The 2012 election is almost three years away. It seems to me that given Palin's negatives, a little obscurity now won't be a bad thing for a GOP candidate.
In 2005, I bet less than 10% had heard the name Barack Obama. That didn't seem to impede his election, now did it?
Here, read this:
"Poll: Kerry tops Bush in debate
But Bush gets nod for believability
(CNN) — Sen. John Kerry fared better than President Bush in Thursday night's presidential debate, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 615 registered voters who watched the event.
-snip-
Overall, 53 percent of Thursday's debate watchers interviewed said Kerry did the better job, compared with 37 percent who favored Bush.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html
Kerry beat Bush by massive 16 points according to CNN’s post debate poll. How did that work out for Kerry in the actual elections? He lost.
I think the effect of the debates on the actual voting, is very much overrated. I would argue that campaign stump speeches, and the convention speech(areas that Sarah Palin really shines at) have a greater effect on voters than the debates.
You must not be old enough to remember 1980. Reagan was trailing Carter by double digits going into their first debate. That debate performance - which all the polls clearly gave to Reagan, was his campaign's turning point. He took the lead from Carter after the second debate, and never looked back.
You might also not remember that Kerry was leading Bush in the polls up until the October 30, 2004 OBL tape was released. It can be argued that without the release of that tape - which came two weeks after the last Presidential debate, Bush would have lost.
You must not have cable then. I see them all, virtually all the time, fielding tough questions from hostile reporters - on Sunday morning shows, on nighttime cable shows, in interviews on the Capital halls.
They are out there - not talking to Oprah about their pregnant teenage daughters and hunky husbands - but talking to unfriendly journalists about real political policies that affect Americans everyday.
The only thing is, Sarah Palin has had a very solid 16 years experience in politics, out of which over 10 years were in an executive position.
0bama had exactly ZERO executive experienc, when he was elected president. Totally different.
Oh, please.
DeMint, Pence, all the time. OldDeckHand needs to change handle to SenileOldDeckHand because you must be watching the same clip time after time. They have no NATIONAL VISABILITY and are not making a difference in the issues of the day.
ok
You would be surprised.
” Reagan was trailing Carter by double digits going into their first debate. That debate performance - which all the polls clearly gave to Reagan, was his campaign's turning point. He took the lead from Carter after the second debate, and never looked back.”
You left out the bit about American hostages that Iran was holding captive for staggering 444 days, the disastrous attempted rescue of the hostages by Carter, the constant unrelenting mocking and ridicule from the Ayatollah Khomeini, which ate away at Carter's poll numbers.
“You might also not remember that Kerry was leading Bush in the polls up until the October 30, 2004 OBL tape was released”
Ummmmm.. no.
Bush and Kerry switched leads throughout 2004, long before the debates.
The fact of the matter is that despite a resounding win by Kerry in the debates(according to this CNN poll), Kerry still lost.
So much for your “debate” trumps everything spiel. It just doesn't. By contrast, after Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC, McCain/Plain shot ahead of 0bama/Biden in the polls.
Operation Eagle Claw happened in the spring of 1980 - long before the debates. It's just a record of fact that Carter enjoyed a comfortable lead going into the 1980 Presidential Debates, and had a few point lead going into the last debate. You might remember that Reagan was holding out on the second debate because Carter wanted to exclude Anderson. But, with Reagan trailing in the polls, he acquiesced to Carter's demands and Anderson was excluded.
Reagan crushed Carter in that second debate turning a close race into a blowout for Reagan. It was the debates, more than anything else that won the race for Reagan.
"Bush and Kerry switched leads throughout 2004, long before the debates."
No once said it didn't. What I said was Kerry was leading Bush - outside the margin of error - up until such a time that the OBL tape came out. IOW, the Kerry's debate performance helped him and hurt Bush.
I have been thinking about the question of Sarah Palin’s electability and I believe that she is electable. The reason is that I have no doubt that Sarah could take Texas in the primary and in the General. Also, Sarah is going down to Florida and she is already popular there. If Sarah does the right things in Florida she could win Florida and Texas in the primaries and in the General. If Sarah has Florida and Texas then it comes down to a fight for the rural states and I believe Sarah can take the rural state will some ease.
It all added up, because the Iran hostages were still being held by Khomeini and his Islamic crazies. Until the hostages were released, it was an open sore. Kinda like how Bush's approval ratings in 2008, were affected by the war in Iraq, despite the war starting long before 2008.
Bottom line: Iran was one of of the biggest reasons that Cater lost to Reagan. Reagan kept hammering him on it, and it resonated with American voters, who were fed up with America being made to look impotent and foolish by a bunch of medieval Islamic mullahs.
“No once said it didn't. What I said was Kerry was leading Bush - outside the margin of error - up until such a time that the OBL tape came out. IOW, the Kerry's debate performance helped him and hurt Bush.”
Again, Bush and Kerry had switched leads all year. Accept it or not, Bush won because of the Swift boaters. It had nothing to do with the debates which Kerry kept “winning”, and Bin Laden’s tape had little to do with it.
The point being, your insistence that Sarah Palin will “lose” in the debates so therefore she cannot win a presidential elections is nonsense.
Nope, they have this irrational, hysterical hatred of her, and sadly too many conservatives have bought into this self-fulfilling prophecy that she can't win if she runs for President.
That is so true. I was just on Herman Cain’s facebook page and even there someone said she was “unelectable”. No reason why, no explanation, just that. Ugh.
Your source for the polls doesn't come clear in my browser, but I copied this quote from the article:
I was surprised that Palin's charm did not work better than the poll results showed. But she likely was weighed down by Saturday Night Live parodies and interviews earlier in the week with CBS's Couric. By the time of the debate, people knew that she is not ready for the presidency and saw through her efforts to appear that she was with canned responses.
The issue from the Thursday night debate ultimately is not about Palin but about McCain's judgment in selecting someone with so little qualification for national office.
The McCain/Palin ticket will likely drop into attack gear for the remainder of the campaign in a last ditch effort to stop Obama and Biden. I think it's likely to become really ugly but hope that McCain chooses instead to recover some of his dignity as Palin did in a good effort Thursday night.
No bias there right? It appears Olddeckhand believes the MSM templates quite well. It was Palin's fault McCain lost. Is your last name Schmidt?
I couldn't care less about the comments of the media. What I care about are the scientific results from the pollsters. I chose that particular story because it quoted the most polls I could find - CNN/CBS/FOX. I've seen other polls from that period from NBC/Wall St Journal that all track with the others.
Are you saying the polls are wrong, fabricated, made-up or manipulated in some way? If so, that's fine. At least I know where you're coming from. You'll believe nothing that doesn't conform to you're own personal view of world, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. It's tough to have an intellectual conversation with that.
I'm trying to find the internals to these polls. Would you be a dear and post a link to at least one of them?
But then you jumped to your own conclusion: You'll believe nothing that doesn't conform to you're own personal view of world, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. It's tough to have an intellectual conversation with that.
You're attacking with no basis. Do you have some kind of bug up your butt tonight, or are you always angry?
post #27 links to a reference that cites a number of polls from immediately after that debate.
Then I'm not sure what you are saying. I'll repeat my central thesis...
Every poll taken in the immediate aftermath of the Bide/Palin debate indicates that the public's perception of that debate was that Biden won handily, but that Palin didn't embarrass herself.
I've never seen a single scientific poll that either proclaimed the debate a tie, or that said the public believed that Palin won.
I personally thought that they both gave sophomoric performances in that debate, which is what I was expecting from Joe Biden. I, like another poster, thought that Palin missed a number of very easy opportunities to take Biden to the woodshed. But, because of her lack of legislative and debate experience, those opportunities passed her by. That's all I'm saying.
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.