Archive for February 15th, 2011
A few days ago, when news broke that Sarah Palin had hired a chief of staff, many took it as a sign that the former Alaska governor was finally stamping a formal structure on her freewheeling political operation. The arrival of Palin's new chief of staff, Michael Glassner, a GOP political operative from New Jersey, ignited renewed speculation that she was planning a 2012 White House run. But rather than indicating an increasingly focused organization ramping up for a campaign, the real story may be that the operation is running pretty much the way it always has, which, this being Sarah Palin, is barely controlled chaos. More than two years after her national debut, Palin is still having trouble retaining key advisers: Glassner's arrival comes not long after Palin had a falling out with one of her most loyal aides.
Read it all
Certainly a defect in her operation
Obama's game is transparent, isn't it? He is playing a game of chicken. He puts forward a series of proposals that he knows are more or less insane; but he also believes that Republicans will come to his rescue. They, not being wholly irresponsible, will come up with plans to reform entitlements–like, for example, the Ryan Roadmap. Ultimately, some combination of those plans will be implemented because the alternative is the collapse, not just of the government of the United States, but of the country itself. But Obama thinks the GOP's reforms will be unpopular, and he will be able to demagogue them, thus having his cake and eating it too. Is that leadership? Of course not. But it is the very essence of Barack Obama.
Read it all.
Obama cares about ONLY one thing – RE-ELECTION – so he kicks the budget can down the road.
Are you a loser? If you are the Heritage Foundation, Media Research Center, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Principles Project, Jim DeMint, Jim Jordan, Rush Limbaugh (given his comments yesterday on CPAC), and others — you are losers.
Grover Norquist says so. Norquist, last week, called those who chose not to participate in CPAC and those who share those views “losers.”
But wait . . . there’s more.
I’m not even going to get into Americans for Tax Reform suddenly opposing an end to the ethanol subsidy on the grounds that it would be a tax hike.
Read it all
And, I agree.
Comments Off on links for 2011-02-15
The latest PPP Poll is out and Mitt Romney is barely leading the field.
- Mitt Romney – 19%
- Sarah Palin – 16%
- Mike Huckabee – 16%
- Newt Gingrich – 12%
- Ron Paul – 9%
- Tim Pawlenty – 7%
- John Thune – 4%
- Mitch Daniels – 3%
Mitt Romney’s lead in Colorado adds to first place polls in Arizona, California and Nevada.
Romney manages leads, albeit narrow ones, with both conservative and moderate voters in Colorado. Among conservatives he gets 18% with Palin right behind at 17%, Huckabee at 15%, Gingrich at 13%, and Paul with a rare performance hitting double digits at 10%. With moderates Romney has 22% to Huckabee’s 20%, and 10% for Palin and Gingrich.
In some states where Romney leads he doesn’t have the highest favorability of the Republican candidates but is first anyway because he’s seen as more Presidential than some of the other folks who are better liked. But that’s not the case in Colorado- he’s first for the nomination choice and first in popularity. 60% of primary voters have a favorable opinion of him with Palin and Huckabee at 59% and Gingrich at 54% coming in further behind.
The full poll is here (Pdf).
1 Comment »
Nate Silver’s 2012 GOP Presidential Field on recent Favorability Surveys
Yes, but it is, what it is.
So it does look like Republicans have some legitimate reason to worry. In the previous five competitive primaries — excluding 2004 for the Republicans, when Mr. Bush won re-nomination uncontested — each party had at least two candidates whose net favorability ratings were in the positive double digits, meaning that their favorables bettered their unfavorables by at least 10 points. All five times, also, the nominee came from among one of the candidates in this group. Republicans have no such candidates at this point in time.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have two candidates in Ms. Palin and Mr. Gingirch whose net favorability ratings are actually in the double-digit negatives, something which since 2000 had only been true of Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton.
There are plenty of examples of candidates who became considerably more popular (like Hillary Rodham Clinton) or considerably more unpopular (like Elizabeth Dole and Mr. Giuliani) over the course of an election campaign, so none of this is set in stone, especially for the candidates who aren’t yet well-known. Likewise, it’s hard to say what Barack Obama’s standing will look like by November 2012 (right now, his favorability ratings are 51 percent favorable against 41 percent unfavorable).
I would quarrel with Ms. Rubin’s notion that Republicans are squandering a “golden opportunity.” On the one hand, incumbent presidents aren’t easy to beat; on the other, the identity of the opposition candidate only matters within a fairly narrow interval (when the president’s approval rating is between roughly 40 percent and 50 percent). But unless a candidate like Mr. Clinton emerges, Republicans may well be at some risk of underachieving.
Nate silver who slants to the LEFT is right on the money here.
President Obama will be difficult to beat and the Republicans have a weak field of candidates.
So, what to do?
Do NO harm to the Senate, Statehouse or House candidates and regroup for 2016 when the GOP candidate field is more experienced and not running against an incumbent.
Comments Off on President 2012: Should the GOP Worry About their Presidential Candidates?