Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 18, 2010.
21% is 100% too many
I'd love to see her run, for the comedic value, of course.
Sarah Palin is like Obi-Wan Kenobi. You strike her down and she will become more powerful then you can possibly imagine!
Also polls about who should run for POTUS 2 years out are meaningless drivel...
A maverick going rogue.
How many of the 21% are Democrats who want her to run because it will be a guaranteed win for the Dems?
Oh- I'll be one of those.
I simply can't imagine why anybody WOULDN'T want Sarah Palin to run for president*personally I think it would make for some of the best TV in history.
Yup, exactly. If you and I were polled, we would be included in that 21% who want her to run even though we don't want her to win. I bet the number of Americans who actually want her to win is even lower in the teens somewhere.
I have actually found similar charts when InTheNet and a few other frequent commenters were polled.
It's hard to imagine how she could do any worse than Barack Obama.
She is working for Fox News now. She retired from being governor. Any chance of her being president was lost at the latter and trampled at the former
I tend to agree. At this point, everything she says: every parsed phrase, misstep, misunderstanding, can be used against her during the GOP primary and later election. Of course, this won't change the diehards, who would vote for Palin regardless, but that 21 percent isn't enough to carry her to victory against any candidate.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the FNC machine won't push their new employee toward Iowa in 2011 and do everything they can to manipulate its results, but this shouldn't (I'm allowing for a serious WTF moment) allow her to garner much support.
A third-party candidacy is more likely, but at best she'd just split the Republican vote like a "conservative" Nader.
I'm sure I'd rather want him back than Palin....
Most don't want the world to end, but there's a startingly number of people hoping for the rapture. I think that pretty much precludes polls of public opinion from meaning anything.
I don't want her to run. Because if she runs, then there's the possibility - even if it is remote - that she might win. Be careful what you wish for.
(And I've said it before. I'll say it again. She's going to run. Just not as a Republican).
Dang it! I've been saving that graphic for just the right thread and you had to go and post it.
I prefer left leaning Libertarians or Green Party candidates, but I know 2012 will either be a Democrat or a Republican.
With that almost certain reality, yes, I want to see Palin run so the Democrats win in 2012.
Obama's approval rating is about 50% percent in this recession, but W's was from 19% percent into the mid-30s most of the time in this downed economy. I could only guess what Palin's approval ratings would be if she became President, saw the economy worsen, and continue to make speeches around social conservative issues. It's just too scary to imagine.
What tells you that? A hundred years or so of precedent?
I certainly don't miss him.
I feel this way too . . . if she were to run as a Republican. On the other hand, if she runs as an Independent or as some new party candidate such as the Tea Party, she'll split the conservative vote.
I hope she does run as an indy. Obama will win states that Democrats haven't won in 50 years.
Heck, if it was only 100 years, it wouldn't be so bad. Try 150 years.
With third parties, it's two steps forward, two steps back, or even three steps back!
Practically, the Libertarian left here have got close to getting something locally (Northern California) but the Greens did win a few local ones. And this is in a famously liberal part of the country.
Before Democrats sometimes brought up the issue, the left Libertarians and the Green party have talked about medical marijuana and the rights for gay people to marry. I know in a Republican state, left leaning Libertarians or Greens stand much less of a chance. There has been talk among us of joining forces behind a rogue third party person who was once a major party member. The Greens ran a former, well known Democrat, and the Libertarians could get a fed up liberal Republican or Democrat who wants change faster in DC. Of course, Sarah Palin is not one left Libs or Greens would want, even if we knew here name is worth at least some votes on recognition alone.
Right leaning Libertarians, who once used to vote for issues of personal freedom, have become hijacked by the Christian Right to some degree. But not all of them since I know some right leaning Libertarians that want DC off our bodies, our beds, and our hard earned tax money.
The Libertarians did very well with a well known radio personality, Gene Burns KGO San Francisco, their top perennial vote getter, but he has since become a blue dog Democrat.
I believe the liberal nature of Northern California is often over-exagerated, and it is also important to note that typical big-government liberal lemmings find left-wing libertarianism just as unappealing as many of the traditionalist Republicans do. I'm a fan of Chomsky just as much as anybody, but I'm afraid critical mass isn't in the near (or even foreseeable) future with regards to the Left-wing Libertarian movement. Social activism cannot be forgotten however, it's just important not to overemphasize it's effect.
Just my 2, perhaps inconsequential, cents. You 'Betcha!