DescentBB

Well to all those news outlets that had fun with Ms Palin, it would seem that the tables are completely turned:

"And there are few things more sweet to Palin and her fervent supporters cheering their TV sets this week than the image of a hungry know-it-all "lamestream media" caravan of 15 or more vehicles traipsing along behind her red-white-and-blue bus enroute to they-know-not-where to do they-know-not-what."

"Polls schmolls. The tables are turned now. And it's the best political entertainment of the campaign so far.
The media on campaigns is accustomed to being courted, even catered to with assigned airplane seats, meals, transportation to events, seats waiting, transcripts, the upcoming advance schedule, self-serving secrets confided.
But now they want/need Palin more than vice versa. They know the ratings when she's on. And they know bosses love ratings. So, they follow along in the exhaust."

"Tuesday, as our astute buddy Tony Pierce wrote here, Palin announced that she was in favor of ending all energy subsidies, including ethanol. So the afternoon's discussion topic was her, even though Tim Pawlenty said the same thing about ethanol last week to little notice. And Tuesday many who dislike Palin were saying, well, you know, I kinda agree with her there."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... b02d50970c

And it would seem some on the left side broadcasting still don't get it as evidenced by this MSNBC boob Martin Bashir commenting on the painted flag on Palins bus:

"It all sounds like a wonderful commitment to American values and American history, but it's nothing of the kind. In fact, the whole thing could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes, the flag of the United States. Under standards of respect and etiquette, it's made clear that the flag of the United States should never be used for any advertising purpose whatsoever. Yet that's precisely what Sarah Palin is doing. She's using the flag of the United States for her own financial purposes. She drapes herself in the stars and stripes and makes millions of dollars in the process. This has got nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with filling her pockets."

Anyone care to look at how many painted flags are on sold products? i think the left is getting in panic mode and fear if Palin runs, we will see another conservative landslide.

woodchip wrote:i think the left is getting in panic mode and fear if Palin runs, we will see another conservative landslide.

I think the Democrats are licking their chops at the thought of a Palin nomination, because they know that hell would freeze over before she could manage to win an election. Man, and the rest of the world mocked us for electing Bush...

And yeah, it's entertainment...like watching a clown dance around. There was a fantastic quote I saw from her website the other day, when her little traveling circus stopped at Mount Vernon. Something about her daughter saying that Washington must have "worked really hard" to keep his farm running. I wonder what Palin thought all of those decrepit little shacks were for.

Tell me Top, do you really think all those news outlets and all those Democratic pundits and handlers belittle and abuse Palin because they really think she can't win? If they did they wouldn't waste their breath nor their bandwidth on her.

The funniest thing I saw regarding the media and Palin recently was when they complained they felt like paparazzi chasing her around and implied she was creating a dangerous situation by not telling them in advance where she was going to next! They are pathetic and wrong on so many levels. They have gone from the 'fourth estate' to simply being lazy elitist hacks.

woodchip wrote:Tell me Top, do you really think all those news outlets and all those Democratic pundits and handlers belittle and abuse Palin because they really think she can't win? If they did they wouldn't waste their breath nor their bandwidth on her.

I think they belittle her because she frequently makes statements that reveal her as a drooling idiot, and the fact that so many people in this country would willingly elect her to its highest office is a pathetic statement on the overall intelligence level of the American people.

woodchip wrote:Tell me Top, do you really think all those news outlets and all those Democratic pundits and handlers belittle and abuse Palin because they really think she can't win? If they did they wouldn't waste their breath nor their bandwidth on her.

Dude, you live in a celebrity culture......Palin is a celebrity, plain and simple. I, along with ANYONE else who understands electoral dynamics, will gladly wager you that Palin CANNOT, EVER, POSSIBLY win.
She has negative numbers around 62%. In other words, nearly 2/3 of the voters both KNOW her and have made up their minds they don't like her. No one wins with those sorts of numbers, not at any levels.
And, those sorts of numbers just can't be changed all that radically.

Top Gun wrote:I think they belittle her because she frequently makes statements that reveal her as a drooling idiot, and the fact that so many people in this country would willingly elect her to its highest office is a pathetic statement on the overall intelligence level of the American people.

I second that! She calls the media the "lamestream media" and won't sit down to interviews because she doesn't think they're relevant? Well, she couldn't answer a question if her life depended on it. If Palin can't even answer a simple question like "What newspapers do you read?" Come on, what a airhead! So what does she do after getting this pansy of a question from milk toast Katie Curic? Bow out of dealing with all the media out of embarrassment, except Faux News, and stomp around calling them names, dodging them right and left.

She's been seen chumming around with Trump. What a combo. An airhead and a hairhead!

And yet the drooling low ranked idiot beat out a sitting democrat for the Alaska governors job.

woodchip wrote:And yet the drooling low ranked idiot beat out a sitting democrat for the Alaska governors job.

You have to be half-insane to want to live up there anyway, so that makes perfect sense.

For once Top, you make perfect sense

I don't know why anyone would want to get behind Palin. She's kind of weird, creepy and couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper bag.

/me peeks into Ferno's paper bag. "You find a way out yet, Fern?"

.

ThunderBunny wrote:/me peeks into Ferno's paper bag. "You find a way out yet, Fern?"

aw that's cute. but you still can't really hold a candle to anyone here.

Ferno wrote:I don't know why anyone would want to get behind Palin. She's kind of weird, creepy and couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper bag.

Too often Ferny you post before checking up:

"Through creative accounting by big oil and ambiguous reporting standards, the Murkowski plan just wasn't giving the State of Alaska the pay-off that was expected. So the former mayor of Wasilla (population 9,000, as the MSM always points out) demanded that the agreement be renegotiated and the terms be nailed down. They laughed when she sat down to negotiate, but in the end she had a new deal that delivered 50 percent of the oil revenues to the Alaska Permanent Fund, and enabled Palin to send a check for $1,200 to every qualified Alaskan citizen."

And:

"Then to follow up that act, she got the Alaskan Legislature to approve development of the TransCanada gas pipeline, a $40 billion deal that will go 1,715 miles from the treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, to the Alberta hub in Canada, from which it will be transferred to the United States. This project had been sitting around for 30 years on hold because the big energy companies didn't think it would be profitable, and their corrupt cronies in the legislature obediently kept it on the shelf. Crusading against corruption and negotiating across the aisle, Palin not only got it passed in record time, but opened up the bidding when the U.S. companies were reluctant to jump in. So she went ahead and awarded the contract to low-bidder TransCanada Alaska, a firm that has already built 36,000 miles of pipelines in North America. As a final fillip, the Governor signed the bill at the Alaska AFL-CIO biennial convention. While Barack Obama's solution to the energy problem is to urge us to check the air in our tires, Palin's solution is to start building a $40 billion gas pipeline, without Federal government assistance."

So Ferno, does this sound like Pailin can't negotiate?

And to all you party hacks and naysayers who have been gulled into believing the tripe about Palin because certain forces out there have put a ring through your nose, perhaps you should stop reading Move On.org and MSNBC and broaden your horizons.

That shows ability to stand your ground and deal hard-nosed in the face of a lot of opposition. Plus, she does remind me more of the people I interact with everyday than any of the others I see. She's a contender.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote: There was a fantastic quote I saw from her website the other day, when her little traveling circus stopped at Mount Vernon. Something about her daughter saying that Washington must have "worked really hard" to keep his farm running. I wonder what Palin thought all of those decrepit little shacks were for.

Well, it seems that none of the slave quarters at Mount Vernon survived to the present day.
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/pres_a ... m/pid/443/

However, there are several articles that describe what is documented about the slaves and slave buildings at Mount Vernon
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/collec ... 43/#ASatMV

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_g ... fm/ss/101/

Here's a reconstruction of a slave cabin
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/pres_a ... /pid/938//

If SP runs my respect for her would sky rocket. If she is just pulling a trump then she is more of a joke then the guy she's taking after.

[ Post made via Android ]

callmeslick wrote:...
She has negative numbers around 62%. In other words, nearly 2/3 of the voters both KNOW her and have made up their minds they don't like her. No one wins with those sorts of numbers, not at any levels.
And, those sorts of numbers just can't be changed all that radically.

Actually I would think someone with such knowledge of election dynamics as yourself would know that you can poll in that neighborhood of unfavorable when you are one of many possible candidates for the party and then if you announce you are running and start to gather support...like she would from the tea party which, as you with all your knowledge, must understand has momentum and carries a lot of weight right now...she could move rather quickly to the top of the list at which point the polling would show that a large percentage of those who responded unfavorable toward her would also respond as supportive of her if she was their party's candidate.
So, considering today's unfavorable level is itself dynamic and in fact can change drastically, and you are the Sensei of election dynamics, now is when you do the double talk butt covering equivocation routine to explain how you are not wrong...

Personally I think she is vice presidential material and she might be maneuvering to get in the race to have enough support behind her from the tea party side that another contender would seek to gain her supporters by choosing her as his running mate. However it would be hard to make the argument to her that she isn't ready for the top spot considering she has a better resume than the guy who won last time. She may have developed enough of a taste for the game to want to take it to the finish line.

Will, my opinion is the tour is a way to test the waters and see if her support is there. If not, I think the fact Palin is moving to Arizona gives me the thought that if her internal and external poll numbers do not rise she will run for McCains senate seat. I'm almost of a mind McCain may even retire early and anoint Pailin as his successor. With Az having a republican governor, guess who the governor will pick. With senatorial experience Palin will have added credentials to run for POTUS. If so, Palin is in a win/win position and will prove to be a smart politician. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Here's the deal: if Palin runs and either a) doesn't win the nomination or b) doesn't win the general election, I get to say "I told you so" for the next 2 years. 4 years if she loses by a signifigant number, and 6 years if she drops out early.

woodchip wrote:So Ferno, does this sound like Pailin can't negotiate?

signing a couple bills isn't negotiation.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:So Ferno, does this sound like Pailin can't negotiate?

signing a couple bills isn't negotiation.

With all due respect...did you actually read the quotes in my reply?

woodchip wrote:And yet the drooling low ranked idiot beat out a sitting democrat for the Alaska governors job.

she was an unknown, with virtually zero negatives in her home state at the time. Right now, I wonder if she could even carry Alaska at all in a national contest.

Will Robinson wrote:Actually I would think someone with such knowledge of election dynamics as yourself would know that you can poll in that neighborhood of unfavorable when you are one of many possible candidates for the party and then if you announce you are running and start to gather support...like she would from the tea party which, as you with all your knowledge, must understand has momentum and carries a lot of weight right now..

that's a pretty clueless collection of words. First, nothing much will move those negatives more than maybe 5 points, which still kills any chance(general wisdom is that you don't win with negatives over 40% tops).
Second, I would suspect that the tea party contingent is in the 38% not negative already, so nothing will change. Finally, all recent polling shows independants and moderates souring, big-time on the Tea Party,
so the picture I painted stands up to your attempt at sarcastic analysis.....

Further, to state that someone is 'vice-presidential' material ought to presume the capability of being a competent President if need be. Palin doesn't even get 50% of her own looney party to agree with that view of her.

woodchip wrote:With all due respect...did you actually read the quotes in my reply?

not only that, but i did some research to get more information on them.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:With all due respect...did you actually read the quotes in my reply?

not only that, but i did some research to get more information on them.

So would you mind sharing that info?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And yet the drooling low ranked idiot beat out a sitting democrat for the Alaska governors job.

she was an unknown, with virtually zero negatives in her home state at the time. Right now, I wonder if she could even carry Alaska at all in a national contest.

Well if your smart guy doesn't get unemployment down, Palins numbers will be stellar compared to Obama's come election time. At that point, Obama would be lucky if he could carry his own lunch.

Will R. wrote:Personally I think she is vice presidential material and she might be maneuvering to get in the race to have enough support behind her from the tea party side that another contender would seek to gain her supporters by choosing her as his running mate.

I hope for conservatives your right. With all of Palins paid appearences, tv shows, and leaving the Governorship early, right now she strikes me as an oppertunist who is only in it for herself.

Its like a really really bad relationship where a friend of yours is being cheated on by their partner, but they want so badly to believe its true love that they stay in the relationship despite all the signs.

You guys deserve better.

If she ends up not even running after generating all this media attention for herself, then I hope some of you will be able to call this what it is.

I honestly think they only person that has a chance is Rudy, whether that's gonna be a good choice or not, I don't know. I'm not even sure it matters who is president anymore, all things considered.

callmeslick wrote:..

that's a pretty clueless collection of words. First, nothing much will move those negatives more than maybe 5 points, which still kills any chance(general wisdom is that you don't win with negatives over 40% tops).

What do you base that 5% limit on?
You don't win with negatives that low right before the election, sure, but this isn't right before the election. In Oct. '91 only 18% of Democrat voters were happy with their choices and H.W. Bush was sitting pretty at 67% at that time yet by election time in '92 Clinton won. So don't expect me to believe it just because you say so! I'd say most of the time candidates don't recover from that level but the economy SUCKS right now and from here forward if Obama doesn't really turn it around it's going to be even worse and who ever is left in the hunt at crunch time will receive support from their party, even Sarah Palin and that is no departure from the norm by any means.
Clueless...Heh!

callmeslick wrote:Second, I would suspect that the tea party contingent is in the 38% not negative already, so nothing will change. Finally, all recent polling shows independants and moderates souring, big-time on the Tea Party,
so the picture I painted stands up to your attempt at sarcastic analysis.....

I think those words sound awfully familiar. They sound just like what was being said by democrat talking heads right before the Tea Party candidates trounced the Democrat candidates last time around. So we'll see if you are the blind squirrel that found a nut on this prediction or you are wrong there as well.

Obama extended tax cuts. H.W. Bush raised taxes. I don't think comparing the two is apt.

null0010 wrote:Obama extended tax cuts. H.W. Bush raised taxes. I don't think comparing the two is apt.

Bush raising taxes hurt him with his no-new-taxes base. Obama extending cuts hurts him with his end-the-cuts base. So to what ever degree taxes will play a role the analogy seems to hold up pretty good.

Palin's Facts

As she thinks and tells us what they are anyway.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2 ... publicans/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpb

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... -crowd.php

I'll edit in some more polls later, but the general idea is that Palin is not the front-runner.

If you want a lesson on how to get elected after having really low negatives…check out the career of Richard Nixon.

null0010 wrote:..

I'll edit in some more polls later, but the general idea is that Palin is not the front-runner.

I didn't realize anyone said she was out front. Didn't Slick just tell us how she so far from it she can't win and were debating that inability to overcome that lowly position...
So I don't. follow your point.

[ Post made via Android ]

Will Robinson wrote:What do you base that 5% limit on?

thirty years of involvement in politics, much of it analyzing polling data. There are certain rules, and first off, let me define what I am calling 'negatives'. Those are respondants with a strongly negative opinion in a representative survey. What you will find, should you ever choose to study such stuff, is that folks with strong negative or positive opinions are very unlikely to change those opinions. The 5% was a generous guess, as I've never personally see anyone move their negatives over even long campaigns by more than 2%.

You don't win with negatives that low right before the election, sure, but this isn't right before the election. In Oct. '91 only 18% of Democrat voters were happy with their choices and H.W. Bush was sitting pretty at 67% at that time yet by election time in '92 Clinton won

Well, there is an example of a race where neither candidate had negative numbers over 25%. In other words, few people despised either Bush or Clinton. Of course, people did not really KNOW Clinton, for that matter. That race had nothing to do with this discussion, as negatives weren't involved. That race came to essentially a two-word answer: Ross Perot.

So don't expect me to believe it just because you say so! I'd say most of the time candidates don't recover from that level but the economy SUCKS right now and from here forward if Obama doesn't really turn it around it's going to be even worse and who ever is left in the hunt at crunch time will receive support from their party, even Sarah Palin and that is no departure from the norm by any means.
Clueless...Heh!

you are. You don't mean to be, but you simply are clueless as to core political science concepts.

I think those words sound awfully familiar. They sound just like what was being said by democrat talking heads right before the Tea Party candidates trounced the Democrat candidates last time around. So we'll see if you are the blind squirrel that found a nut on this prediction or you are wrong there as well.

I, and every Dem official I know, was positive that 2010 was going to be bad. The only squabbling was over how bad. On another forum, I predicted(CUDA will remember this) in Sept, that November would see loss of the house and of 5 seats in the Senate. So, reality was a little bit worse but not a bad prediction.

At the same time she has such bad favorability ratings she's running a very close second to the leader, Romney, and she hasn't even announced a candidacy!
So I think I have good reason to believe that conservatives will hold their nose and cross their fingers and vote FOR her come election time even if they have voted negative towards her in the favorability poll at some point in the past.
Where her favorability ratings end up if that all comes to be I don't know but I will bet you it is more than a 5% improvement from where it is today.

I'll make another prediction too.
I think if she does end up the repub nominee Obama will get scorched in at least one debate with her. The 'conventional wisdom' spun from the dem machine is too intoxicating for them to set aside and take her seriously, especially Obama, his arrogance will set him up like Apollo Creed in Rocky. At the same time she's been there and never stopped training and will have the benifit of going after an incumbant this time, one who made promises about employment and wars and taxes. He is now going to be a stationary target of sorts as opposed to the storybook first black guy selling vague sweetness like Hope and Change as contrast to the departing Bush.

That said, I don't know that she can win, nor do I want her to get the nomination because, unless a third party with some uber seductive type candidate gets lucky and grabs the voters imagination, I want the repubs to elect a more traditional candidate and lose for doing so in a miserable fashion. She can have a shot at the repub nomination playing the I-told-you-so card in 2016 against Hillary or who-ever.
I think if she wins we all lose because I'm afraid she will be 'handled' and marketed as the second coming of Regan and the winner will be Status Quo Division R with the dem base energizing on that upset to take the House and Senate in the subsequent cycles and we'll play audience to 4 or 8 years of lame duck Sarah under investigation by endless Dem hack commitee's.

and this whole disgusting scenario is the way it is played and the reason I have a little extra contempt for you Slick because you are so smug and proud to play an active role in maintaining it. Not personal but you paint the target on your own back

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Obama, his arrogance will set him up like Apollo Creed in Rocky

The rest of your post aside, Rocky lost that fight. Hard.

Yea, and I never said she would win did I? But you do understand Apollo took a beating he never thought would come let alone see the fight go the distance...like I said, scorched in at least one debate.

Oooh, look at me I'm a precog