Pollster.com

Is Palin all we are going to talk about until the midterms?
Where's Stillow?
Come quick! I am pretty sure someone is going to say something bad about Palin and she'll need her knight in shining armor to ride to the rescue!

@Mark in LA:

Do you get paid by the far left?

Palin certainly has the star power and the ability to wow the right wing crowd with their talking points. However, she seriously lacks the gravitas of socio-politico-economic issues very relevent to the office she would like to seek.

Even though Obama's term in office started less than 6 months ago, I guess it is time to start running the numbers for 2012. As in past, I will stick to the math and avoid opinion and pejoratives.

Today, within margin of error, about 35% of the electorate is Democratic, 35% Independent and 30% Republican. If to be ex-Governor Palin wins 95% of the Republican vote and 5% of the Democratic vote, she would need 57% of the Independent vote. With her positions as far right as they are, that seems very unlikely.

Paul,

She would win a lot more than 5% of the Democrat vote.

She has been winning around 2.5-3 times that number in the last couple PPP pollls.

Gallup has 17% of dems somewhat or very certain to vote for her if she runs for president in 2012. Winning 10-15% of dems is doable for Palin.

I agree though that she has major obstacles and will need at the very minimum flip the 52-44 Obama victory among indies on November 4th into a 52-44 victory on her end.

She won't win 95% of Republicans. At best, she can hope for is 90%. Even Bush only won 93% of Republicans in 2004 and didn't win 90% in 2000 as far as I know.

There's a lot of conservative Dems, especially in the midwest, states like OH, PA, WV, etc. They are also commonly referred to as Reagan Democrats. There is a lot more conservative Dems than there are liberal republicans, so any pure conservative always has a shot. The Gallup poll has 43 percent saying they were certain or likely to vote for her, that is a pretty large base of support to start with. As fiscally conservative as I am, she would not get my vote to start, I would still support Romney, so she would hav her work cut out for her to convince registered indy's like myself to actually pull the lever for her.

It's simply beyond my comprehension that despite having such qualified, intelligent, well-spoken, and PRO-LIFE candidates in the Republican party as Romney, Crist, Jeb Bush, and even Bobby Jindal, that Sarah Palin still commands such power from the right. It speaks to a severely dumbed down, raw populism still alive and well in America that even 37% of Americans would vote for her as President, or as some of you surmise, possibly 90% of Republicans.

I think Romney, with his strong economic credentials, represents a serious challenge to Obama come 2012. And he's been grooming himself well. Obama vs. Palin would make us a laughing stock around the globe.

Of course populism is alive in America, that is how Obama was elected...a combination of anti Bush feelings and his hope and change populist rhetoric. Many politicans use the word change to advance themselves, although they bring no genuine change, just politics as usual. Though I am not currently a would be palin voter, you Obama supporters have a real problem. Obama has already broken many of his campaign pledges, I've seen polls saying 90, yes 90, percent of people are saying he is spending to much money, while his perosnal approval remains somewhat strong in the mid 50's, approval for his policies remains well below 50. Many times a vote for president is a vote against the other guy. Many Obama voters were simply angry at Bush. Libs underestimated W twice. I think palin is dangerous to the left because she comes off as a normal person. She's not a millionaire like the others in the 2008 election, she is probably the only one of the 4, mccain, biden and obama who could tell you how much a gallon of milk costs at the local grocery store. Obama spent his whole life running for president....despite his thin resume of actual expereince, his own brand of populism combined with the histoircal trend of the nation changing parties after a two term president, he won, but with less than 53 percent. Agree or disagree, average people out in the heartland respect a person who is genuine....she has the potential to tap into those types of voters along with the Reagan Democrats. She has a very large base of support already and what she has that someone like Romney does not, is the abilityto energize....Palin draws huge crowds at her events. You can call her names, call her stupid, you can mock her, etc, but if you look at the poll, 53 percent feel she is unfairly treated by the media....to continue to bombard her so hard you urn the risk of a backlash against the media and the left. She only needs to shave a few points of Indy's and palin / Obama matchup becomes a very very close horse race. I don't recall a time where both sides would have a candidate who excited there respective bases that much, the downside for Obama in 2012 is he would now be the one having to answer for his decisions in the WH, in 2008 he had the advantage of just balming Bush, he loses that advantage in 2012 and it goes to the opposition party. And if support for his policies remain where they are, stuck in the low 40's, then someone with strong appeal to average Americans can come in and steal it. I think a lot of liberals have a hard time accepting the fact that Sarah Palin is happy, you libs carry lot of anger around with you....and after Bush screwed things up...and Obama seemingly doing the same thing as Bush, spending money we don't have, then yes, peson very popular with the grass roots has good potential. The stupid thing just doesn't work in the long term, its one of you liberals older tricks, you tried it on Reagan, you tried it on Bush, both were elected to two terms in office. as a fan of politics, that woul dbe an amazing race to watch, plain vs. obama....while I am still a romney supporter, he just doesn't have the excitement factor that she does. That is one of the reason obama beat hillary, he just excited the base in a way she could not and that translated into huge amouts of donations. Right or left, that would be one heck of a campaign to watch. If she can learn to do what Reagan did and push the media aside, go over the top of them and talk directly to the people, she certinaly has the abilityto connect in a way that not to many can do. Wheather she can do that or not is another story. Obama got mostly a free ride from the media, if he gets another free ride in 2012 he will be hard to beat. Politics is a game and anything can happen. Don't dismiss her....like I said, she already has a huge base of support and Obama has very very little room for error in states like OH, FL, VA, etc. Obviously its still really early, this november and next november will be key indicators on which way the country might be leaning. 2009 doesn't look good at this point for Dems in key governorships....
She is definatley a superstars right up there with obama, I beleive she got more viewers to her rnc speech than obama did his, that means she draws in people, that is a very powerful tool to have in your arsenol. Again, can anyone recall a race where both sides have a person who excited there bases the way these two do?

John McCain and Sarah Palin won more Democrats than the number of Republicans won by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Poll indicate that 75-80% of the folks in the Republican Party not only dislike Obama's policies but dislike him personally. The remaining fifth or so of Republicans who approve of him will gradually shift away from him because Obama is a man incapable of uniting the country in the same way that a more centrist person such as Hillary Clinton would have been able to do. According to the exit poll, Hillary Clinton would have defeated John McCain by 11 points, a far greater margin than the 7% margin that Obama won by on November 4th. Republicans just plain dislike Barack Obama and so do many independents.

Obama is a polarizing figure who is counting on 40% of the electorate considering itself Democrat in 2012.

His net in terms of approval/disapproval among independents is lower than Palin's according to PPP. Other pollsters, such as Rasmussen and MSNBC/WSJ, also show Obama even or worse among independents.

In fact, Obama is now down to both 52% approval/disapproval in both PPP(D) and Rasmussen.

Palin isn't too far away from him with 46% of the country giving her favorable reviews.

Stillow. Can you use paragraphs please. I'm not being nasty I honestly want to read what you are saying but your style makes it very difficult to follow.

@conspiracy

I will make an effort...

"John McCain and Sarah Palin won more Democrats than the number of Republicans won by Barack Obama and Joe Biden" ...... This is wrong Obama won more Republicans then John Mccain and Palin won democrats Obama won by 10 million votes over mccain
Obama got 15 million more votes then Reagan did in 1984.... The fact of the matter there is simply not enough voters for Republicans to get they lost the Jewish,Hispanic,Black,Asian votes by Huge Margins ......you need to read Mike Murphy's (a Mccain adviser) article on the Demographic shift

"There's a lot of conservative Dems, especially in the midwest, states like OH, PA, WV, etc. They are also commonly referred to as Reagan Democrats. "

firstly WV did not go for OBAMA,Secondly obama won PA by 11 points double digits, your also giving on side of the coin NC,VA are drifting more liberal and the South West trending more liberal also states like NM,CO,NV i even think if Mccain was not on the ticket that AZ would have been won by OBAMA

I really get tired of deabting polls though Remember Reagan had and approval rating in the 30s during the height of the rescession of the 1980s.....Matt Drudge and Scott Rassmussen can poll watch for the next 3 years whats going to matter is NOV 2012 and Obama is not an easy defeat just ask the Clintons

Many thanks Stillow.

Manning, Obama won 9% of self-described Republicans to McCain's 10% of Democrats.

He won the election by almost 10 million votes because more people called themselves Democrats and because he won indies by 8 percent.

Manning,

Conspiracy just smacked you down and supported my argument.

Since there are more Democrats than Republicans and Mac and Sarah won a greater percentage of Democrats than Obama won of Republicans, it logically follows that Mac and Sarah won more Democrats than Obama Republicans.

I wouldn't read too much into that though TruthMeter. Those were votes for McCain primarily. She is toxic with Democrats and independents. Can she turn it around? Possible but very unlikely.

"She is toxic with Democrats and independents."

Is that why her favorables/unfavorables among independents are 46/43 in Pew and 45/38 in PPP?
That's "toxic" in your opinion?

Obama is 46/49 among indies in PPP and much lower among indies in Rasmussen.

How is she toxic with Democrats if 17% of them are very likely or somewhat likely to vote for her in 2012 against Obama according to gallup. Of course she won't get 17% (that's an insane percentage) but she'll get 10% I believe. Anything more is gravy.

You can't equate favorables with job approval. Favorables will always be higher. If you think she can be elected president be my guest and nominate her. Pretty please.

I gotta agree with conspiracy on the favorables, they don't mean much. They don't equate to votes. Maybe someone has a favorable view of a candidate but has a more favorable view of their opponent. Palin may get favorable numbers from guys who find her attractive. Don't laugh, it happens.

On the favorable/unfavorable question, I think the unfavorable is the more important number. Anyone with unfavorable over 50%, or maybe even in the upper 40's, will have a tough time winning an election. Unfavorable DOES equate to votes you won't get. Maybe not 100% of the time, but close to it.

Is that why Hillary Clinton would have destroyed John McCain by 11 points according to the exit polls?

Her unfavorables were always higher than Obama's and yet, by the end of May in 2008, John McCain had no chance against Clinton as he was trailing her in the reddest of red states such as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arkansas, while holding huge leads in Ohio and Florida. McCain would have been campaigning to save Tennessee and Texas if he was facing Clinton.

In any event, Obama's favorables/unfavorables among independents are probably not too different from his approval/disapproval among indies in the PPP and Rasmussen polling. I have yet to see a poll that shows consistently huge differences between favorability and approval rating.

Since Obama is at 46/49 approval/disapproval in PPP and 45/54 approval/disapproval in Rasmussen among indies, it could very well be the case that Palin's favorables are higher than that of Barack Obama's among independents for the IVF pollsters.

A quick follow up.

Just look at Palin's unfavorables vs the number who think she is unqualified to be Pres. About 10% who have a favorable opinion of her think she is not qualifed to be the Pres. Go figure?

But any politician with a 3 year window has a chance to turn things around. Remember polls are just of snapshot of the present. 3 years is forever.

Cherry picking polls does everybody a disservice. And Hillary wasn't attacked from basically Super Tuesday on. The GOP had been preparing for her for over a decade. Do you think she would really have had that easy a ride?

TruthMeter

I don't put much stock in exit polls. They have built in issues. Like when I vote, on my way out I don't take the time to talk to anyone because I gotta job to get to. According to the exit polls Pres Kerry would have been running for re-election last year.

Hillary played better in Arkansas and Tennessee because of home court advantage. Bill still lots of FOB's in those states. Hillary never had a chance in Texas.

I have real doubts that she would have done any better than Obama, or even as well. And yes, it is because she historically had high unfavorable numbers. She just rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Conspiracy,

I doubt our side would have been able to damage her. She effectively won over the middle class during the primaries. I could have seen 15% of Republicans voting for her (moderate Republican women).

Remember, Obama defeated Hillary because he dominated her among liberals. Obama's base were young white people and black people, two demos that were never going to vote for John McCain. Hillary Clinton dominated Obama among conservative democrats, the types that often vote for Republicans.

TruthMeter

I think a good case can be made that Obama beat Hillary because of her high unfavorables. There were just too many people who didn't like her and would not vote for her.

And our guys would have had endless ammo.

Her health care fiasco.
Travelgate.
I ain't baking no cookies.
Too many others too list.
And that shrill voice would have been played over and over.

All of course contingent on the good guys having a candidate smart enough to know that if the other guy is not taking public financing, if you do they can outspend you many times over.

Yeah, maybe she would have beaten McCain like a drum, lol!

Read the exit poll Mike and the polls in May of 2008. Hell, she was leading in North Carolina. We don't hold on to Kentucky, West Virginia, or Arkansas with Hillary as their nominee. We were already down 8-10 points in Ohio and Florida. The race would have been over the moment they nominated her. No Republican can win without winning Ohio and Florida and there were just too many Republican women indicating they were going to vote for her.

Besides, McCain would have not used any of that against Hillary. They are good friends.

If he wasn't going to use Wright against a guy he hated in Barack Obama, why would he use any of that against his friend?

The polls are the polls.

Take a look at question 18. You'll see that at the end of the election, Hillary Clinton was as popular as Sarah Palin and JOhn McCain in the deep red state of Texas. Yes, against Hillary, we would have been defending the Alamo.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/poll/files/200810-summary.pdf

YOu think McCain has any chance of winning white women by a 53-46 margin against Hillary? Even Al Gore defeated George W. Bush among white women, something Barack obama didn't come close to doing.

Blacks never vote for the Republican. Obama's support in the primaries were liberals, not the moderate and conservative Democrats that Clinton dominated Obama among in the primaries.

Obama's performance among Hispanics fell dramatically short of Bill Clinton's two-party performance among this group in 1996.

The polls also showed her struggling in Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. She never polled particularly well in Virginia or Colorado either. They both had different strengths and weaknesses and different paths to victory hence such a close primary. And to think McCain wouldn't attack her is ridiculous. Remember his shot about what she was doing while he was a POW in Vietnam?

Actually I meant the funding of the Woodstock museum or whatever it was. But the point is the same.

McCain's litany of campaign mistakes is long. I don't know that he would have beaten anyone, at least in the political climate that existed at the time. And maybe McCains biggest weakness was that he just doesn't get that there are no friends in politics. Not with an election on the line.

Republican women who were going to vote for her in May and those who would have actually done so in Nov are two different critters. After the attack machine got done with Hillary, we could have probably gotten her deported! An exagerration, but you get the idea.

Thats all in the past now anyway.

Conspiracy,

"The polls also showed her struggling in Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. She never polled particularly well in Virginia or Colorado either."

Those polls changed. She had swung them those states into her corner by May. She figured out a compelling middle class narrative well and didn't need an economic crisis to persuade people as to her readiness for the presidency. The woman has a lot of respect in conservative and Republican circles.

"Remember his shot about what she was doing while he was a POW in Vietnam?"

That's a pretty weak barb.

He would have never challenged Hillary's patriotism. Most of the conservatives and Republicans that I talk to respect the woman for her staunch support of Israel as a New York Senator. We disagree with her on some of the issues but respect her accomplishments. This anecdotal story is supported by actual exit polling data indicating that around 20% of people who voted for McCain would have voted for Hillary Clinton/

"Republican women who were going to vote for her in May and those who would have actually done so in Nov are two different critters. After the attack machine got done with Hillary, we could have probably gotten her deported! An exagerration, but you get the idea."

I don't think so Mike. She was an incredible candidate. If I weren't so "educated," I might have fallen for her middle-class, strong national security, culturally conservative posture. She saw what was coming far ahead of anyone else.

Obama and McCain were still talking about Iraq at a time when the country was about to undergo an economic collapse months later.

She had already established her credibility as a middle-class champion. Even if McCain did pursue the route you have suggested, they wouldn't have stuck in the same way the Ayers attacks unfortunately didn't stick. Leaving Wright on the table was McCain's worst decision.

There was nothing equivalent to Jeremiah Wright with Hillary.

But how many people who voted for BO would NOT have voted for her? I don't have any numbers, but my gut tells me it is a substantial number. Especially if it was viewed that BO got the shaft. For example, there was a lot of talk at one time that if the super delegates over ruled the popular vote a lot of people were staying home or voting for Nader or even for McCain.

"Obama's performance among Hispanics fell dramatically short of Bill Clinton's two-party performance among this group in 1996."

So what. He still carried them by 46 points. And last year they were 9% of the electorate compared to just 5% in 1996. Asians also doubled in size and Obama won them by 27 points after Dole won them thirteen years ago. And McCain would likely have done better with men of all races against Clinton. All in all that is the biggest problem facing Republicans - the electorate has moved beneath them.

BigMike,

The exit polls indicated very few.

Besides, look at who supported Obama in the primaries. They were black people and young white liberals, two groups that never vote Republican and likely wouldn't have for an old white guy who didn't vote for MLK's birthday becoming a holiday.

"He still carried them by 46 points."

Your math is very off. Obama did not carry Hispanics by 46 points, not even close my friend.

You obviously have a much higher opinion of Hillary than I do. She is a polarizing figure, and you can probably guess which side I fall on.

I live in AR and most folks I know are glad the Clintons decided they would rather be New Yorkers.

I still think it is naive to think any exit poll on Hillary is in any shape or form an accurate picture of what would have happened had she won the primary. McCain would have gone after her on things like the sniper dodging and how ridiculous she was as a champion of gun rights etc. The way she presented herself around the time of the Pennsylvania primary was ripe for GOP attacks on her credibility. She would still have beaten McCain just in a different way to Obama but I really don't think the popular or electoral vote margin woud have been much different.

Guys,

Hillary is old news. She had her shot and blew it. Her one and only chance is for BO to be so unpopular in 2012 that his own party dumps him.

She just doesn't matter any more.

"I live in AR and most folks I know are glad the Clintons decided they would rather be New Yorkers."

Mike, c'mon bro, this is a polling blog, not an anecdotal blog. Look at the 5/12 poll at the right hand corner. Your state was already lost to Hillary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election

"Obama's performance among Hispanics fell dramatically short of Bill Clinton's two-party performance among this group in 1996."

I was gonna let it slide, but I have to set the record straight. Ross Perot ran in 1992 and in 1996. He got more votes in 92, but still got a significant number in 96. You can't use the 96 numbers and call it a two-party race.

Conspiracy,

The problem with your analysis is that Hillary had this huge lead prior to not only the economic crisis, but also the summer. She had already established her credentials on the polling and her readiness prior to the crisis.

Sniperfire hurt her so badly in PA that she beat Obama by almost double digits despite how much he spent in the state.

I'm just thankful we didn't have to face her. If she was your guy's nominee, I give her every Obama state but plus the three Appalchian states (Kentucky, West virginia, missouri easily, and arkansas). We would have been defending Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee with Hillary on the ballot.

I'm still stunned that Obama lost Missouri.

Mike,

Clinton's raw percentage in 1996 was still higher than Obama's raw percentage in 2008 among Hispanics.

You have to read an exit poll pal. Ross Perot's voters were split between Clinton and Dole.

It is a myth that Perot helped Clinton.

Mike,

What do you think about Palin by the way?

Admittedly I do live in a more conservative part of the state and Hillary would have carried statewide.

You gotta give me a little leeway on the conversation. Why are we even talking about Hillary on a Palin thread?

Hillary is in the past. Stick a fork in her, she's done.

Peerot was not much of a factor in 96 I will agree. But a 3 way race is a different dynamic.

Perot helped Clinton in 92. But we got even in 2000 when Nader put W in the WH.

Palin is done too. Her resign stunt ranks up there with McCain suspending his campaign. Stupid move. She will make lots of money from books, speeches, and TV. And then she will fade away. I see that as the most likely outcome. She may surprise me, but I ain't holding my breath.

I know it's a polling blog. That is why I was dicussing favorables vs unfavorables. And then you had to bring up the witch queen.

I don't need to read any exit poll. They are worthless. The Daily Kos is more reliable. Like I said, according to the 2004 exit polls Pres Kerry would have been running for re-election last fall.

Why waste my time on something that means nothing? Like exit polls. Or Hillary.

Mike,

I'd keep an open mind about her. This article is a good read. It's hot off the presses.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/708gpxia.asp

Her favorables are just too high among Republicans (moderate and conservative) for her to be written off and her favorables/unfavorables are at effectively the same level as HIllary Clinton was in 2003 according to some polling.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88691,00.html

Oops. Yeah 36 not 46 points. My bad. Still impressive considering his poor primary performance with Hispanics and McCain did have some appeal to that demographic.

Mike,

This year's exit poll was extremely accurate. Nobody has disputed it otherwise.

Truth

After 2004 nobody read them.

My last word on Hillary. She got to the big game and choked.

Palin, on the other hand, apparently needs to move about 10% of voters her way. Doesn't sound like much, but easier said than done. And I buy the number. Gallup just the other day had her at 43/54 for likely to vote for her vs not likely. So 10% or a little under.

That poll and this one back up my contention that the resignation hurt her chances. Is there any Repub who knows how to run a campaign anymore?

Mike,

Would any other Republican have 43% very likely or somewhat likely vote for them at this time?

Think about it. She gets 72% of Republicans, which is pretty much every Republican who doesn't approve of Obama's performance as 25% of Republicans still approve of his performance in Gallup's polling.

It includes a respectable 44% of indies and even 17% of Democrats.

What other Republican is starting off with such a base?

The resignation only makes sense if she starts hanging out in living rooms in Iowa and NH. If I wanted to move 10% in three years, I would try to do it up close and personal, a few voters every day. Especially in those two states. Maybe throw in SC just for grins. That may be a little hard to do when home base is Alaska.

Good night all.

Most candidates have not had her exposure. For most, at this point we would see 30 to 40 one way or the other, and 30% undecided. The exposure cuts both ways.

When you have that running start, why shoot yourself in the foot? The resignation just fails the smell test.

Gotta take a trip in the morning. See you next week.

What other Republican is starting off with such a base?

Romney and Huckabee,

See Ras from 7/6.

Mike,

Doubt it. You committed the cardinal sin of comparing the results from one pollster with that of another pollster.

Rasmussen is the only pollster to show Romney and Huckabee with somewhat comparable favorables/unfavorables among Republicans with the soon-to-be-former Alaskan governor.

Many of you still miss how presidents are elected. First off, palin is not toxic to anyone but liberal democrats. Thinking republican candidates for pres are stupid and unqualified is a thing Dems have always done....Reagan was just a dumb cowboy remember? And Bush was just a blithering idiot remember?

Obama beat Hillary because he energized the liberal base, which tend to be younger more ignorant people. Those who have not yet become established in life...Hillary was middle class voters, people who had jobs, paid taxes, etc...and understood the difficulties of life....but Obama had the energy with the liberal base. He was able to defeat a far more qualified person in Hillary by simply using liberals.

A very small percentage of the country is liberal, yet we elected a liberal president. Much of Obama's vote was simple an anti GOP vote. Indy's were angry at Bush, to much spending, stupid wars, etc....so many of them cast there vote in objection to the GOP. It happens all the time, you vote for the other guy for a different direction.

Go back and listen to many of Obama's stump speeches, he sounded like Reagan, talking about self reliance, hard work, etc. He was able to tirck many ocnservatives into voting for him. in addition, a quarter of conservatives didn't even vote. Obama's numbers are falling because there are not enough liberals to keep his numbers high, his slow bleeding of GOP and Indy'ss will continue because the policies he is putting forth and not popular ones. Over time people won't accept the "its all bush's fault" excuse. Reagan did hit lows in the recession i nthe early 80's, however he put policies into place that owuld actually get us out, targeted tax cuts, breaks for business, etc. Obama has taken the oppositte approach...he turned away from a formula we knew worked to get us out of severe recession and decided to do what Bush was doing, just spend spend spend...gotta problem, ahhh just throw some g'ment money at it.

If Gallup is about right and 43 percent would likely vote for Palin, that is a huge number 3 years out to start with. She can spend 3 years knocking Obama policies....A 7 or 8 point pickup is not that difficult to do...And on the electoral map its easier for her....because Obama wins in key battlegrounds were so small. The bulk of Obama's 10 million vote win came in just a few very blue states, CA, NY and IL....you take those 3 out and the popular vote is super close.

Her RNC speech was a home run, so she can deliver a speech when she needs to, if she refines her skills the next few years, does some speeches, gets around the country, provided contrast against Obama's unpopular policies, she will be a very very effective candidate....and as I mentioned before, you know when the other side picks a person that scares you when they attack so viciously....Liberals go after he so harshly because they know she has potential to do a lot of damage to their agenda.

I'm tired of hearing about how the GOP is dead, they certinaly have issues, but parties go in cycles...it was only a few years ago the Dems were getting beat downs in ocngress, 2002 and 2004....Carville had a paper bag on his head on live TV cus the Dems were getting killed. That was only a few years ago....parties go up and down in popularity all the time, its happened for 100 years.

I am not on the Palin wagaon at this time, but you Dems repeat the same mistakes over and over and over for decades. You call the opposition stupid and when they win you stand around with dumb looks on your faces, saying I don't get it. Any candidate who has the abilityto energize people is dangerous, Palin can do that, just as Obama did in 2008. Obama policies are way left of where the majoirty is. That means any opposition is dangerous.....you guys won a squaker inmany many key electoral states and you act like you'll never lose again. People vote with there pocket books, when Obama policies do not reverse the economy and actually make it worse, Kermit the Frog will be able to beat him. i was around in the Carter / Reagan era....and I can tell you from personal expereince, the paralell and similarities between Carter and Obama are stunning. Obama has all the early signs of going the way Carter did and one term lame duck flop....and it lead directly to a conservative revolution....to this day many of you still don't understand why reagan was so liked.

Liberals biggest mistake is there own arogance.

"Liberals biggest mistake is there own arogance."

Liberals aren't the ones on this blog calling people they disagree with "ignorant" and that by definition conservatives are "smarter". But thank you for using paragraphs.

Ignorant is not name calling, its just a word that means misinformed or unifnromed. There's a reason older people are more conservative and younger people more liberal. Older people have expereince to draw from, younger people don't have that. That is why as people get older more often than not they become more conservative as they have had an opportunity to learn from life's expereinces. Don't confuse the word ignorant with an insult.

And I uses the word because liberals on htis site seem to ignore history. History provides us with reference points to help determine future events.

Would you prefer a different word to try and explain how I feel liberals simply misinformed and uninformed as to the reality we live in?

I often disagree with you Stillow but I would never go as far as to call you uninformed, misinformed or ignorant. In fact just the opposite - you are none of the above. And on the contrary I am a keen student of history. We just come to different conclusions from it and form different opinions on what we happen to see.

Or not as the case may be as we discussed the other day - we agree on abortion and I am more conservative than you on gay rights.

You know I was generalizing when I said you liberals. Its easier to generlize than to name specific names on a blog.

One of the reasont here is an age requirmenet to be president is because over time, and by living life you learn and become more informed. I don't think there's any question that a college student is simply more "ignorant" than someone who has been around for 40 years....that to is a generality, because there is always exceptions to every rule. But usually older people are seen as more infomred because they have life's expereinces to help draw there conclusions on a issue. Its easy to be liberal in college, because liberalism is great on paper and in the classroom, but as I said, as you become established in life, get a job, start paying taxes, have kids, you tend to become more conservative as life teaches you things along th way.

Ignorant is not an insult, its simply a phrase to help describe those reaching a certain perspective based on the comments they write. Like the guy saying the GOP is dead...when history shows us over and over again party's go up and down in populairty. I am sure he is a younger lad who hasn't seen as much as some of us older fogies have. Or the guy who said Obama won by 10 million votes, but to me he seemed ignorant on hwere those votes were, and as I pointed out almost all of them came from just 3 large blue states. So from an electoral map stand point a race in 2012 will be highly competitive as the battlegrounds which decide presidents were all very close with a couple of exceptions.

So it was not intended as insult, just a descriptive word I use.

I don't think that is ignorance just different emphasis. The electoral college wasn't that close at all - it was the biggest victory margin in 20 years and Obama had 270 electoral votes locked up in winning Colorado by 9 points or 215,000 votes. That is not a "highly competitive battleground". Next was Virginia was 7 points or 234,000 votes. The other states Obama won were much closer but he didn't need them to win. I also find it difficult to except that the first Democrat to get a majority in 32 years and the biggest popular vote margin for any Democrat in 44 years is somehow a failure. We can all find our own talking points with plenty of evidence each to back them up. There are lies, damn lies and statistics after all! :)

Biggest popular vote SHARE for any Democrat in 44 years (Clinton won by 8 points in 1996 to Obama's 7 points in 2008).

And that 7 point win last year was impressive considering the "liberal" McCain was the opponent, eating into Obama's demographics like that!

Doh! I've gone and proved my ignorance here. Obviously Clinton got slightly more electoral votes each time. Argh! :(

Anyway, as always nice sparring with you Stillow. :)

Kennedy / Nixon was an electoral landslide, but a nailbiter on the popular vote. A huge number of states went Kennedy by tiny margins. CO and VA were a couple of the exceptions I pointed out. There's only a block of 10 or so states that elect our president...we all know how TX or MS will vote just like we know how MA and VT will vote. All those battlegrounds can shift on any election.

Obama had key advantages this time around. The anti Bush mood translated to anti GOP...in addition many people wanted to be part of electing the first black president as it represented a big step for the country. I think a lot of people wanted to be part of that. He will lose both those advantages in 2012. The anti GOp mood should slowly fade away, since Obama is now president, it will be his policies that get the coverage. Its alwaysn easier to run for president than to be president. Early signs right now are that the GOP will probably win NJ and VA this fall for governor. I think even a lot of Dems are worried right now about losing the House in 2010....Clinton won a lot more states than Gore did in 2000, so states can change very quickly.

A lot of liberals right now are just to over confident. The country is simply not as liberal as Obama's policies, that will eventually wear on him. Polls clearly show people are worried about his level of spending. Its not all roses out there for Dems. They happen to take advantage of a unpopular Bush and exploit it.

2012 is going to be a much closer race.

"I think even a lot of Dems are worried right now about losing the House in 2010"

Couldn't resist. I don't know any. Well, maybe UpstateDem at DailyKos but I digress. That may be overconfidence but I doubt it. By the way on the economy Stillow you sound alot like many liberals did in calling the surge a failure before it had time to work. Just sayin'...

Oh and history suggests Obama will either lose or win bigger than last year. Only Woodrow Wilson I believe did worse in getting re-elected than he did first time around.

Your right, Clinton won by 8 and in just 4 years that disappeard. Just 4 years ago Bush won by 3 and it disappeared. Kinda goes back to my economy theory, if its good the sitting pres will win, if it sbad, they are out.

Different nominees. You can't really extrapolate like that. 2012 will be a referendum on Obama though. Agree that if the economy picks up he wins if it doesn't he loses. Three and a half years is a long, long time.