Excerpt:
On the Republican side, Ronald Reagan has actually improved his standing despite the fact that he has not announced his candidacy and has done little campaigning. A year ago, [1978] 45% found Reagan unacceptable as the next President; that negative rating has now dropped to 38%.Among Republicans and independents, Reagan is still the first choice of 27% as the G.O.P. nominee, while Ford is picked by 24% and Howard Baker runs third at 14%. John Connally is fourth at 12%, although he is already campaigning hard and is regarded by many professionals as the most likely G.O.P. candidate to stay the course in what is already shaping up as a fascinating presidential campaign. Source
So to say: You cannot be elected President of the United States when 47% of ALL voters already have decided that they have an "Unfavorable" opinion of you, is presumptuous as it is almost 2 1/2 years (28 months or so) before the election, and she hasn't even announced that she is going to run.
And most importantly, as the article above indicates, in 1978 – 2 years before the election - Ronald Reagan had a negative rating of 45%, close to Palin's current negative rating. Like Palin, Ronald Reagan's negatives were also the product of media biases and distortions, but he was able to convince the voting public to have confidence in him and made a positive and inspiring case for himself.
If I remember correctly, Sarah's negatives have improved recently. While her negatives have to improve more, six months ago her negatives were actually higher. And a great portion of the voting public don't make up their minds until the last few months (and some don't decide until the last few days), so I think your analysis damning Sarah to failure seems a bit too premature, to say the least.
I have followed your posts for many years and, if your photos are actually your own photos, I would like to say that you are one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
That may be sexist, but, I just had to say it.
Now, back to the topic.
The issue is that Ronald Reagan had substance and experience.
Sarah Palin doesn’t.
Ronald Reagan had eight years of experience as Governor of a State with a population of 37 million in 2009.
Sarah Palin had less than four years experience, because she quit in the middle of the first term, of a State with a population of less than 700,000 in 2009.
Ronald Reagan had years of experience on radio expounding his political views.
Sarah Palin looked like a deer in the headlights when she was asked by “Colonoscopy on TV” Katie Couric what newspapers she read.
When “Colonoscopy on TV” Katie Couric makes you look dumb on national TV, you are toast as a Presidential candidate.
I will make the same point that I have mae before:
A white, male candidate wants to be President of the United States because:
(Obama’s case) He is a Community Organizer and a State Legislator and less than a full term as a U.S. Senator because he is the Politically Correct skin color.
A white, male candidate wants to be President of the United States because:
(Palin’s case) He has served less than a single term, before he quit, but he is the Politically Correct gender.
I’m sorry, but that is blatant Affirmative Action that would get a white, male laughed off the political stage.
What keeps me awake at night is the nightmare that far-far-Left-wing Obama will be re-elected beacause American voters are less afraid of him in the Oval Office than they are afraid of Sarah Palin in the Oval Offoce.
“And most importantly, as the article above indicates, in 1978 – 2 years before the election - Ronald Reagan had a negative rating of 45%, close to Palin’s current negative rating. Like Palin, Ronald Reagan’s negatives were also the product of media biases and distortions, but he was able to convince the voting public to have confidence in him and made a positive and inspiring case for himself.”
Thanks, Victoria, for posting this reply to the “unelectability” canard . There are numerous polls from the late 1970s that show Reagan with astronomically high “negatives” which are the result of disengaged, tuned out voters who did not know much about him except what they heard on TV. As he began to win primaries, the negatives went down. But his negatives were always higher than those for Ford or some mushy moderate candidate like McCain. And so are Sarah’s. One reason is that there are many liberals who say they have a positive impression of McCain (or any moderate)but that does not mean they will vote for the moderate over a true liberal. So the candidate with higher negatives actually does better at the polls if his support is more intense.
Another deeper reason for the higher, more intense negatives directed toward Reagan and Palin by the left is the old saying, “One always hates what one fears.”(Reagan was feared, and Palin is feared, becasue the left knows that they are serous about their beliefs) The left’s hatred will continue unabated. But persuadable independents (a larger group than the left), whose fear of the conservative is based upon a a lie, are ripe for the picking, if the conservative has the skills to persuade them. Reagan had that skill. Palin has it too. And she has it in spades.
Having higher negative ratings in the general electorate does not make a candidate less electable as long as that candidate can make up any deficit with intensity of support among his or her base. Reagan did that. He was ALWAYS despised with white hot hatred by the left. But he was loved by conservatives and by independents (who according to all the polls are conservative leaners as well). As you point out Reagan’s negatives went below 40% but unless I am very wrong, they always stayed about there. (note that Reagan never rose to the stratospheric approval ratings of the Bushes) but he always got his partisans to the polls and that meant a couple of landslides.
Palin is following the same playbook as Reagan. Her support like Reagan’s is intense. She is, as he was, the most popular with conservatives and Republicans. And her negatives are going down. They will always be higher but this is no disability for her at the polls. There will be a huge turnout of conservatives and the “persuadables” whom she will bring around. She is in very, very good shape. And the enemy knows it.