House of Eratosthenes

Sarah Palin has erased her drop in the polls that followed her resignation as Alaska governor, according to new national survey.

But when it comes to opinions of Palin, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday suggests a partisan divide and a gender gap.

The survey indicates that Americans are split on Palin, with 46 percent saying they have a favorable opinion of her and an equal amount saying they have an unfavorable view of last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee.
:
Following her resignation, Palin’s favorable rating dropped to 39 percent in CNN polling, but her popularity is now back to the same level it was before she stepped down.

I got an off-line from fellow Palin blogger Shane Vander Hart letting us know about his latest post…a few more tantalizing hints about whether she’s planning to run or not. Couldn’t resist hitting the reply button and sharing what I’ve been seeing:

Two statistically significant factions exploding in number since the book tour started:

A. “Hate to break it to you, but this woman is NOT winning any elections!”
B. “It is WAY soon to be talking about any of this!”

How many deluded Palin-hating souls do you think have made the mistake of signing up for both of these? Perhaps they need to have it pointed out: You need to choose one…

I’d nominate Boortz to represent A, and blogger friend Buck (commenting at Daphne’s place) to represent B. Yes, neither one’s a hater. But both represent millions of people who do so hate…or nurse a grudge…or criticize to the point of tedium…or sneer…or, or, or.

I’ll take them all as sincere commentary — provided nobody’s crossing over. Anyone occupying the overlap is simply grasping at straws, and driving themselves nuts by doing it. So that’s my challenge to the Palin haters. Choose one.

Meanwhile, I can’t help noticing: Forty-six percent approval is within a point or two of He Who Walks On Water, over in the White House. For all intents and purposes, it is equivalent. Hmmm…I think Faction A just took a beating. Need to watch those hasty predictions.

People truly do think in herds, and it is fashionable to feel superior to Palin. even all the rage in many quarters. That was no less true of Reagan.
I don’t support her as a candidate even if there is no one as good at this time. Reagan was really prepared–at least 25 years of reading, speaking, organizing, and planning.
- jamzw | 12/08/2009 @ 00:03
Yeah, that’s a good point.

I suppose it could be distilled down into: These are loyal Republicans who want to go to the next card game with another straight-flush, or else not bother to play. As if the time & trouble of going to the polls on one morning or evening 35 months from now, is somehow analogous to the chips being put down, and there’s something prudent about not bothering to put in the effort — I just cannot identify with this.

You have to play the cards you are dealt.

Nobody is going to win a debate with Obama…not one attended by or moderated by the hardcore-lib set. Not so decisively that it will change the minds of those who will still be in Holy Man’s corner after four years of wreckage. Nobody from the GOP will be so adored by media that they’ll get the fair shake that was denied to Palin.

Ultimately, the reason she was subjected to this treatment that so many are “willing to concede” was unfair, is this: She was threatening. And that treatment will be provided, set the clock by it,to anybody else who is threatening. John McCain got some of it after he became the nominee. Just enough for him to lose. And that’s what everyone is going to get: Just enough.

These people have to be defeated. With an argument. An argument that makes the case that their method of government sucks. Palin’s folksy charm isn’t the point; it’s just icing on the cake.
- mkfreeberg | 12/08/2009 @ 07:14
The Democrat Party and the government long ago became the same thing; so much so that it doesn’t matter what cards are dealt any longer, it matters that we change the game entirely back to the rules that were written for it. We see useless Republican leadership, instead of leaving the Senate chamber in protest, offering one amemdment after another to the Health Destruction Act, convinced of their own relevance and place in this process. After passage, sooner or later, this type will be looking for ways to make it work with the cards they are dealt. That is what we do.
McCain was also convinced. I need someone who is not. Palin needs to show me something. The only thing I really know about her, other than she is no McCain, is that she opposes school vouchers. For me, that is a terrible sign on the way back to liberty.
- jamzw | 12/08/2009 @ 10:45
Does this not further substantiate the point?

If Republicans, or call-em-what-you-will, had balls they’d campaign on a basis of “Vote for me, I’ll come up with some amendments for the next horrible bill.” And then we’d smack them down and say “not good enough!” — the correct answer, on our part — which goes to show why they don’t campaign this way. But that’s what they do. And it is, indeed, not good enough.

We need someone who will say NO. This is where the “Palin might be an adequate senator but she doesn’t belong in the White House” people are all wet. The whole point of having a President, is to have someone who will say NO. Bush wasn’t always up to the task. Why would Romney and Giuliani be up to it? She’s rejected just-plain-bad ideas as just-plain-bad ideas. They haven’t done this quite as often.
- mkfreeberg | 12/08/2009 @ 11:04
Yes, neither one’s a hater.

I may not be a hater, but I’ve devoted a significant amount of time to perfecting my sneer. Wait. “Smirk” is more like it. Sorry. 😉
- bpenni | 12/08/2009 @ 11:53
Nobody is going to win a debate with Obama…not one attended by or moderated by the hardcore-lib set.

Heh. You mean like that debate she had with Biden, the one moderated by the “impartial” Gwen Ifill? Right before Ifill resumed hawking her stupid Obama-kissass book?

The whole point of having a President, is to have someone who will say NO. Bush wasn’t always up to the task. Why would Romney and Giuliani be up to it? She’s rejected just-plain-bad ideas as just-plain-bad ideas.

Pre-zactly. You nailed it. I often thought that if I ran for President, I would campaign on a single word: NO. I’d pledge to veto everything sent to my desk in the first year, sending it back to Congress and telling them it wasn’t good enough. Especially if the makeup of Congress during my term is anything like it is right now.

That’s what I like about Palin. She doesn’t say, “Me too, just a little less” like McCain did. She says “NO. This is a bad idea and not only will I not sign off on it or simply try to water it down, I’m going to go over the heads of the media and explain directly to the American people why I think this way.” That’s what she did during the VP debate; why would her Administration be any different?

The more I hear about her, the more I like her. The fact that she pisses off so many people whom I happen to hate, just intensifies her appeal to me.
- cylarz | 12/09/2009 @ 01:46

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Palin Favorability 46 Percent in CNN PollMonday, December 7th, 2009

Palin Favorability 46 Percent in CNN Poll
Monday, December 7th, 2009