TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Republican Future
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

From my point of view, the problem for the Republican party is that they have lost all credibility.

Twenty years of claiming to be fiscally responsible on the one hand and racking up a mountain of debt does more than indicate that their substantive policies are flawed, it indicates that they cannot be trusted to actually pursue the economic policies that they claim to support.

Even if a Republican candidate claimed that they would pursue exactly the policies that I prefer, I would hesitate to support their candidacy because I simply don't believe them about what they purport to stand for.

To be honest I think that their best bet is to split into two parties, then try to dump the blame for all of their past misdeeds on one of them (preferably which ever one contains all of the religious whackjobs).

Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Did you read the article? Almost everything you say here is off. First of all, I haven't always voted Democrat - that was a huge assumption on your part. I've always voted Dem in Presidential elections, yes, but a vote against George W. Bush hardly counts as being partisan. Hell, I worked on Capitol Hill for a Republican, not a Democrat. Second, what conservative principles does Palin adhere to? I'm very curious on this one - it seems to me she just spouts off nonsense that she thinks people want to hear. As the article notes (and these are quotes, so author "bias" is more or less irrelevant):

Yes I read the article. And we all know you worked for a Republican on Capitol Hill... you wear that like a badge of honor all the time as if it makes you more bipartisan. Anyway she sticks to the principles of fighting for lower taxes and a government that gets out of peoples' way, allowing them to succeed/fail on their own merit rather than an ever expanding central planning nanny state we are currently watching.

quote:

So independent polling groups constitute "Democrats", or just me? Honestly, this defense is pretty weak. Politics always necessitates an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. You think Republicans didn't constantly read polling data on Democrats in 2001?

Reading polling data, and publishing in the mainstream media on a daily basis polling numbers of the defeated party right after an election and continually for months is different. And no, it was't like that AT ALL in 2001. Besides, you were what, 16 or 17 in 2001? Don't pretend like you were paying attention to politics then like youare now and recall "how it was."

Anyway, my comment on this wasn't directed totally at you... I don't see you personally bust out polling statistics that much. But you did this time and it lead me to think about why Democrats and media outlets now seem to be so concerned with approval ratings for virtually every single Republican with a prominant name, as if the race is any time soon. My point was just, why the hell do they care so much right now? It's meaningless and I see "approval ratings" of Mitt or Huck or Rush or Palin plastered in the media constantly. It's gay.

quote:

Who has been giving advice? Seriously, do you read threads or articles before you post?

Uhh... what? I wasn't referring to you directly. I know it's hard to imagine, but it's now always about you.

quote:

I love how you always use Bill Clinton to defend your allegations of liberal bias... as if that makes any sense!

Exaggerate more. I think I mentioned Clinton 1 time EVER as a source of defense. LOL... now I use him all the time? I think it's funny how fast you want to discredit what Clinton said about VF author to bolster the credibility of the article. Has it ever occurred to you that these stupid McCain staffers are trying to deflect blame from their god-awful handling of one of the worst campaigns ever? Patrick Hynes who worked for the campaign illustrates the point well:

quote:

Look, I worked on the McCain campaign. Palin had her shortcomings, but she also brought some incredible strengths to the campaign. And perhaps the McCain staffers who continue to trash the governor are deflecting attention away from how remarkably screwed up and dysfunctional the operation was even before the Palin pick. What I don�t understand is this: Why would anyone hire a bunch of campaign staffers after watching how viciously they are attacking their former employer?

quote:

She won't be avoiding the press? Are you of the opinion that she hasn't thusfar then? The book deal is hardly a problem - the problem, as pointed out in the article, is that her spokeswoman, Meg Whitman, is already using the upcoming book as a reason for Palin to decline interview invitations - "Gov. Palin will be discussing those issues substantively in her book."

I mean, come on man... you can interpret Meg Whitman's statement however you want. It can be taken either way. I read it as her trying to steer people to buy the book, and because she says certain answers can be found in the book does not mean "Palin will be limiting her interviews because you can get the answers you want in her book."

quote:

Wow.

lol... what's the problem? 15 of 15 "ethics complaints" against her get dismissed as being frivolous and baseless, and it doesn't at all stink of wasted time and money in the courts?

quote:

Such as Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter? Not to mention all the quoted people who used to work for Palin during campaigns and political offices held in Alaska. Keep wishing it away.

See answer above. And I'm not wishing anything away... I have no desire for Palin to be presiednt or VP, and I'm not invested in her success in any way.

quote:

Health care has fairly overwhelming public approval. You're probably referring solely to the stimulus here, which makes some sense since a lot of people are probably fooled by conservative claims of "socialism."

What a crock of propoganda. Are you referring to the CBS/NYT poll that said 72% of Americans were in favor of universal health care? Beacuse if you are, read the fine print and you'll see that of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=7

In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner.
http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/in...nout_didnt.html

In this poll, the sample identified as 27% liberal, 37% moderate, and 29% conservative. In contrast, the 3 week ago Gallup Poll showed Americans identify as 21% liberal, 35% moderate, and 40% conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/C...ical-Group.aspx

PLUS, The same poll published more information about this very sample, showing that 16% was temporarily out of work, and another 10% was not in the market for work... wonder if those 26% out of work will lean towards wanting free health care. The sample of people was also never asked about support in the event they were to be dumped into the public plan by their employers.

The number who trust the president to make the right decisions on healthcare policy is almost exactly what it was in 1993... the number who trust Congress has actually declined. Both are below 40% in trust.
http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=2

Finally, the number who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund Obamacare (57%) is lower than in 1993.
http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=4

Of those willing to pay higher taxes, only 43% would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more in taxes. That means fewer than 25% of a sample largely skewed towards liberals are willing to pay an amount far less than what Obamacare may actually require.
http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=5

quote:

So you see no problem with moderates like Sanford and Pawlenty fade away and radicals like Palin, Paul, and Limbaugh rise in legitimacy? You actually believe the party should continue to move to the right? I've mentioned before that I'm completely non-plussed by your interpretation of the McCain campaign. Acting like a Democrat, to you, is not acting like a Democrat to anyone else.

First, Rush isn't an elected politican so stop with that... let's stick to people who can vote and shape legislation. But Sanford and Pawelnty are moderates? Like, in the McCain mold? When I think of "moderate" Republicans, I think of squishy backboned ones like Powell and Tom Ridge and McCain.

But you're not getting what I'm saying AGAIN. I'm not saying the party needs to move to the right, I'm saying those who think the answer is to move to the left like the names I just mentioned, are wrong in their strategy as we just witnessed with McCain's failure. Not moving to the left does not equal "moving to the right". McCain was definitely trying to act like a Democrat... continually trying to go against the Republican norms, bragging about sponsoring legislation with Democrats, trying to play identity politics by breaking people into groups and trying to get "the women vote" or "the latino vote" instead of promoting policies that simply appeal to individuals... etc.

quote:

Jesus Christ, who is "they"? Is this another media conspiracy? Is Purdum being funded by Nancy Pelosi now?

LOL... so defensive we are. Lord. "THEY" would be the media. Tell me you've seen a politian burst on the scene like that before and be slayed in the print and tv news, as well as all of the gossip rags and entertainment talking heads? It's just the reality of how it is man. Don't take it as me defending her to the death because as I've said, I don't want her to be in high office... I'm just calling it how I see it.

quote:

Oh, just shut it. Hillary Clinton?

So now you want to side with Bill Clinton's assessment of that Purdum smear piece from last year about Hillary? lol

Serously though, no, Hillary hasn't got NEARLY the shit that Palin has. It's not even close. You may think so because Hillary has been around for a while, but for the love of Pete... I don't recall the media dispatching a team of lawyers and reporters to Hillary's home town to dig up dirt, or specualting that Chelsea's kid was really carried by her. She had Bill to protect her to a degree most of the time.

quote:

So in your ultimate opinion, she's a raw talent viable for consideration in future elections as a "true" conservative? This is what Clovis was talking about - truly frightening.

No that is not my "ultimate opinion"... at all. I don't see her that way, like other newbies that have a bright political future. All I'm saying is, IF she wants to make a more legitimate play in the future, her only hope is to have more time as a governor and possibly senator where she can produce tangible results instead of rhetoric.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss And we all know you worked for a Republican on Capitol Hill... you wear that like a badge of honor all the time as if it makes you more bipartisan.

I think I've mentioned it once before.

quote:

What a crock of propoganda. Are you referring to the CBS/NYT poll that said 72% of Americans were in favor of universal health care? Beacuse if you are, read the fine print and you'll see that of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=7 In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner. http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/in...nout_didnt.html

So the actual number was probably more even? That doesn't change the impact of the healthcare number.

quote:

Of those willing to pay higher taxes, only 43% would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more in taxes. That means fewer than 25% of a sample largely skewed towards liberals are willing to pay an amount far less than what Obamacare may actually require. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=5

I don't think you've demonstrated this sample was liberal-heavy. As you mention, the sample probably overstated the presence of "liberals" by the mere fact that people want to say they voted for Obama even when they voted for McCain.

And in any case, I would say I was opposed to paying $500 more a year in taxes too - doesn't mean I disagree with the principle of public health care or would advocate against it.

quote:

So now you want to side with Bill Clinton's assessment of that Purdum smear piece from last year about Hillary? lol

It has nothing to do with Purdum. I'm thinking more of FoxNews, to be honest. And probably McCain's comment that Chelsea Clinton is Bill and Janet Reno's love child. I'm sure that wasn't nearly as offensive as when an anonymous blogger questioned whether Trig was actually Palin's grandson.

quote:

No that is not my "ultimate opinion"... at all. I don't see her that way, like other newbies that have a bright political future. All I'm saying is, IF she wants to make a more legitimate play in the future, her only hope is to have more time as a governor and possibly senator where she can produce tangible results instead of rhetoric.

Fair enough.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss What a crock of propoganda. Are you referring to the CBS/NYT poll that said 72% of Americans were in favor of universal health care? Beacuse if you are, read the fine print and you'll see that of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=7 In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner. http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/in...nout_didnt.html In this poll, the sample identified as 27% liberal, 37% moderate, and 29% conservative. In contrast, the 3 week ago Gallup Poll showed Americans identify as 21% liberal, 35% moderate, and 40% conservative. http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/C...ical-Group.aspx PLUS, The same poll published more information about this very sample, showing that 16% was temporarily out of work, and another 10% was not in the market for work... wonder if those 26% out of work will lean towards wanting free health care. The sample of people was also never asked about support in the event they were to be dumped into the public plan by their employers. The number who trust the president to make the right decisions on healthcare policy is almost exactly what it was in 1993... the number who trust Congress has actually declined. Both are below 40% in trust. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=2 Finally, the number who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund Obamacare (57%) is lower than in 1993. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=4 Of those willing to pay higher taxes, only 43% would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more in taxes. That means fewer than 25% of a sample largely skewed towards liberals are willing to pay an amount far less than what Obamacare may actually require. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest...l-on-health#p=5

Well, I'll give you props for using a different author from one of your bookmarked sources, at least it wasn't Ed Morrissy this time:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/...-for-obamacare/

But to respond to this slant on the polling you gave, I'll just cite my source instead:

quote:

As Slate�s Christopher Beam explained last week, the disparity between last fall�s actual vote tallies and the results reported by NYT/CBS yesterday comes down to respondents being too embarrassed to admit that they didn�t vote: quote: The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn�t vote at all saying they did. These people tend to say they picked the winning candidate. Just look at the Times and Journal polls, where about 80 percent of respondents said they voted in the 2008 election. In fact, turnout was about 61 percent. (A 20 percent gap is pretty standard.) Pollsters attribute the disparity to the social discomfort of having to admit, even to a stranger on the phone, that you didn�t vote. Further as Beam explains, �Retroactive vote reporting tends to be a proxy for popularity. � In a 2006 NYT poll, more people said they voted for John Kerry in 2004 than voted for Bush.� If Powerline wanted a more reliable indicator of who was in the NYT/CBS sample, they could have looked at the proportion of respondents that identified themselves as liberal (27 percent) and compared that to the proportion that identified themselves as conservative (29 percent). Likewise, Powerline could have noted that the sample was 24 percent Republican and 38 percent Democrat � a fairly normal party identification advantage for Democrats at the moment. To buttress their claim that the NYT/CBS poll was inaccurate, Powerline linked to a recent Rasmussen poll that found comparatively little support for the creation of a public health insurance option, with just 41 percent of Americans supporting such a move. But as Nate Silver documented last week, it is the Rasmussen poll � not the NYT/CBS poll � that falls outside typical levels of support for a public health insurance found in other recent surveys: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/22/cornyn-powerline/

You can also add Pew Research to that list as well, with 75% to boot:

http://people-press.org/report/522/

No wonder you wingers love Rasmussen, it's consistently the outlier to trend, much like the GOP.

I think it's also worth noting how medical debt contributed to 62% of bankruptcies in our country in 2007, with 78% of those who filed bankruptcy actually had health insurance:

http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_stud...ruptcy-2009.pdf

The current system cannot sustain, period. And the solution that the GOP has offered, Christ, have they even offered a viable solution yet?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The current system cannot sustain, period. And the solution that the GOP has offered, Christ, have they even offered a viable solution yet?

I absolutely agree with you, Opus. The current system is bad and cannot be sustained. The GOP hasn't offered a better alternative, but that's not the point. The fact of the matter is, we would be much better off with a serious reform of the current system, and NOT a single payer government health care system (and make no mistake, that IS the goal and it WILL happen under Obamacare). The abortion that is Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security for that matter) are all mismanaged, overly complicated, poorly designed systems that are eating up more and more of thet cost pie... who can seriously believe a full government takeover of the system would be cheaper and better quality? It can't be. So I'm for major reforms. I just read how the privately owned/run medical care system in Canada is taking off... no surprise there.

Public health plan could save money faster: policy group
Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:00am EDT

By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nationwide health insurance exchange that includes a Medicare-like government option could save $1.8 trillion more than if only private plans are offered, a prominent private U.S. health policy group said on Wednesday.

Federal spending on health-related costs would still rise from 2010 to 2020, but they would be less with a plan that pays doctors and hospital rates similar to the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund.

The New York-based health policy research group compared possible savings a health insurance exchange could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.

Such an exchange would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.

An exchange that instead offered a plan with rates slightly higher than Medicare but below current private plan rates would save nearly $800 billion over one with only private options, according to the Commonwealth Fund's analysis.

"Offering a public plan choice and the design of this choice makes a difference in the pace of change," said Cathy Schoen, the group's senior vice president.

Whether Democrats' plan to revamp the U.S. health care system and provide coverage to the roughly 46 million uninsured Americans includes a government-run insurance plan is a major sticking point as Congress finalizes its proposal.

Supporters say such an option would offer Americans an affordable alternative. Most people with health insurance in the United Stated get it through their employer or the government. But those who do not have coverage through work and do not qualify for Medicare or the Medicare program for the poor can face a tough time buying a policy.

The Commonwealth fund echoed those sentiments, saying private plans could lower premiums as more people seek insurance and that lower administrative costs with the government-run options may force private plans to streamline.

"It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to innovate and compete," Schoen told reporters.

Opponents say a cheaper, government plan will make it impossible for private plans to compete and may drive some out of business. It could also encourage employers to drop coverage and make employees buy a government-backed plan, they say.

Overall, an exchange with a Medicare-like plan will save nearly $3 trillion through 2020, saving consumers up to $2,200 per household, Commonwealth found. About $2 trillion of that would come after about five to six years, it said.

In comparison, an exchange including a government plan with higher rates would save $1.97 trillion and a private plan-only exchange would save almost $1.2 trillion. Both options would save a household $1,600.

Still, an exchange won't keep health costs from rising, the report added.

The increase in federal budget costs from 2010 to 2020 with the Medicare-like public plan would be $112 billion, it found. That is compared to $232 billion under the public plan with somewhat higher rates and $360 billion under a private plan-only exchange.

All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012.

The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include payment reforms to the Medicare program, an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers.

Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/emai...E55N0SJ20090624

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss who can seriously believe a full government takeover of the system would be cheaper and better quality? It can't be.

and yet nations all over the world manage to do this, mine included.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and yet nations all over the world manage to do this, mine included.

I said cheaper... and better quality. "Free" health care isn't free. You think Canada's tax rate compared to the U.S. has nothing to do with that kind of stuff?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and yet nations all over the world manage to do this, mine included.

well, people in the US who don't currently have health care would receive better health care under a universal system. On the other hand, people like myself might actually receive worse healthcare. I have no doubt in my mind i receive better healthcare, when needed, than my peeps in CA or Australia. I also pay a shitload for it, unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Public health plan could save money faster: policy group Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:00am EDT

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading that. Look, forget the premise that there will be more choice with the inclusion of a public option. Where is the actual competition if one body is setting the rules, and does not have to operate according to the market and show a profit to stay in business? They can drive everyone else out of the market until they are forced to go with the public option. There are 1300 health care options now... 1 more is going to miraculously lead to more people covered with better quality, affordable service? The article keeps mentioning how much money will be saved, and I have no idea how they come up with those stats... then they mention that the costs will still continue to rise.

It is BY DESIGN by the government to crowd out private insurance and force people into a single payer socialized system. It is pure deception and lies by the administration to tell the people this decision will lead to more choice and more coverage. Watch this clip of Democrats making the point very clear that they fully intend to use this "healthy competition" thing as a strategy to eliminate private insurance and move to a single payer system... in their own words!


How will it be more affordable if it's going to add $600 billion in new taxes, just to begin to fund it? This will be done by way of taxing health care benefits (which he killed McCain for suggesting) and by cutting hundreds of billions in Medicare/Medicaid benefits... both of which he said while campaigning that he would not tolerate (and goes against his 'I won't tax 95% of the people' bullshit).
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=aqLNecbH0dcg

The truth you won't see in the main stream media? The REAL costs will be closer to $4 trillion!!! Read the testimony of this guy from the House Subcommittee last week... Dr. Parente who is a health economist at the Univ. of Minnesota, and for the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Here's a snippit:

quote:

There are two things people most want to know from these proposals. One, how many uninsured will be covered? Two, what will it cost the nation in one year and in ten years? HSI estimates, like CBO�s recent results, find there is no free lunch to expand health insurance coverage. Our early assessment of the Senate Finance committee proposal shows a 74% reduction in the uninsured with a 10 year cost of $2.7 trillion using public option plan modeled after the Massachusetts Connector. We also modeled an FEHBP version of the public plan and got a cost of over $1.3 trillion, but with a 30% reduction in the uninsured.

So moving just 30% net of the uninsured onto health plans will take more than $300 billion above the Obamacare $1 trillion ceiling... adding even more to the deficit.

And it gets worse:

quote:

CBO scored the Kennedy Bill last week at approximately a 30% reduction for 1 trillion over ten years. Using the ARCOLA model, we found nearly everyone would be covered if all elements of the Kennedy bill were enacted at a ten year cost of 4 trillion. That 4 trillion estimate over 10 years assumes a public option plan with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels in the proposed insurance exchange with a subsidy for premium support that is income-adjusted and calibrated for assistance at the Silver level. The Silver level is equivalent of PPO plan with medium levels of generosity, something with 15% coinsurance rate, manageable copays and average level of access to physicians and hospitals. We accounted for the public plan being reimbursed at 10% above Medicare reimbursement, which is also 10% below commercial insurance premiums.

So a $4 trillion public plan over 10 years buys astronomical deficits, moderate quality of care, with "average" levels of access to doctors and hospitals. And it still UNDERPAYS doctors by 10%.

The doctor's final warning in that House testimony explains that "it is a multi-trillion dollar gamble and we may find our reckoning is not only with the future debt of our children, but their security where the economic crisis has brought international scrutiny upon the US from the principal purchasers of our treasuries. Furthermore, saving businesses from paying health care costs or a state government with federal intervention is simply an accounting cost shift that only saps our long term economic strength.

Link---> http://www.hsinetwork.com/E&C_SC-He...9_oralFinal.pdf

Lebez... you can't honestly, seriously in your heart believe this Obamacare plan will do all the wonderful things it promises. You can't. Even in the most modest of CBO estimates, we're talking about adding $1 trillion to the deficit to insure a NET of 16 million people... 39 mil get it, and 23 get purged from their current plans. As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate: "The proposal does not include a 'public plan' that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers."

And the single payer public plan is where it will go. That's from the CBO director himself. Link---> http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Republican Future

And now Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska.

quote:

Okay, we're getting our first indication of what happened. It seems like a colossal sulk on Palin's part, or perhaps better to say an effort on her part to ingeniously combine anti-liberal media bias agitation with Christianist politics by portraying herself as having been crucified by the liberal media. Said Palin, according to a reporter at the press conference, "You are naive if you don't see a full-court press on the national level, picking apart a good point guard."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...d.php?ref=fpblg

Wah? Even if there isn't a burbling scandal behind this, can anyone still imagine that woman as (Vice) President?

Well, so much for the whole quitting thing hurting her GOP primary chances...

quote:

WASHINGTON � Sarah Palin's bombshell that she is resigning as Alaska governor actually has boosted her a bit among Republicans, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, though it also has dented her standing among Democrats and independents. Two-thirds of Republicans want Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, to be "a major national political figure" in the future. Three-fourths of Democrats hope she won't be. Independents by 55%-34% would prefer she leave the national stage. The findings underscore how polarized opinions of Palin were even before Friday's surprise announcement. Seven in 10 polled say their views weren't affected by her decision. Among those whose opinions shifted, Democrats by a 4-1 ratio and independents by 2-to-1 view her less favorably. Republicans are somewhat inclined to see her more favorably. ... When it comes to a potential presidential run, the USA TODAY Poll displays Palin's strength in the Republican base and weakness among swing voters, who traditionally decide national elections. Republicans by 71%-27% say they'd be likely to vote for her if she ran for president in 2012, while independents by 51%-44% would not.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...alin-poll_N.htm

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.