AP-GfK Poll: Palin most polarizing of 2012 crowd

[Valin]

AP/Townhall:

11/10/10

Sarah Palin is the most polarizing of the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, while impressions of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney lean more positive, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. As for the rest _ Pawlenty, Barbour, Thune, Daniels _ most Americans say, "Who?"

The election, of course, is far away, and polls this early largely reflect name recognition and a snapshot of current popularity. A year before the last presidential election, the top names in public opinion polls were Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans and Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democrats. Neither won their party's nomination.

But jockeying among the dozen-plus Republicans eyeing a chance to challenge President Barack Obama is under way. Soon, they will be slogging their way to living rooms in snowy Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary states.
(Snip)

[Pepper]

Wow, what news. Considering how much abuse Sarah has been subjected to I am surprised that only 5% don't have enough to form an opinion. They must be on vacation with FLOTUS and TOTUS.

 

She may not be the 2012 pick but Sarah has more brass than the majority on the Hill and certainly in the White House. Lots of folks don't like a strong woman.

 

 

Antidote for negative press.

 

 

 

 

 

AP at your service, adding one more pebble to the pile.

[Stella]

She is polarizing and has become a multimillionaire in the process. She also gained a lot of power from the Express PAC. The people who don't like her really don't like her. Since she is in the press daily, opinions are getting solidified. People either love her or hate her and that is the definition of polarizing.

[Chickadee]

It is interesting to me, as I read all the varying opinions in response to posted pieces in the TRR News and Opinion threads, that one recurring issue seems to be a dislike for politicians/activists earning money for appearances, book sales, etc. and becoming millionaires. And yet we expect these same individuals to run for office.

 

And how do they accomplish that? By being rich among other things. I've said it before . . . we also expect them to be powerful, forceful and charismatic; and yet when they are we have a tendency to condemn them. Soooo, what is it you/me/we all really want? To win, of course. But other than that? To think exactly like: Tea Party Express, Tea Party Movement, moderate, conservative, ultra-conservative or what?

 

My personal bottom line is to make certain NO candidate who believes in higher taxes, entitlements, out-of-control spending and anything to do with socialism is allowed to be elected no matter what! I want a strong, winning candidate.

 

By the way, if you believe Barack Obama is not going to be the next Democratic candidate, and that Hillary will be, I offer this ask.com response about the history on incumbent presidents:

 

Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office.

 

Pierce was our 14th President and served from 1853-1857. John Fremont defeated Pierce in his bid for renomination, making Pierce the only elected President (rather than a Vice President who succeeded to the position) to not gain his party's nomination for a second term.

 

None of the other three presidents had secured enough support in their own party to gain a nomination for a full term. Millard Fillmore, who took over when Zachary Taylor died in 1850, did not gain the Whig party nomination for a second term.

 

Andrew Johson, who took over after Lincoln's assassination, had a more complicated situation. Johnson had been elected as Lincoln's running mate as a "Union Democrat". Lincoln had hoped to unite the country with a southerner on the ticket during the Civil War in the election of 1864. But after Lincoln was assassinated and he ascended to the presidency, he faced a Republican congress that despised him. After being impeached -- and narrowly avoiding removal from office -- he attempted to win the Democratic nomination in 1868. Since several Confederate states hadn't yet rejoined the union to vote in that election, and he was not well-liked by northern Democrats either, he failed to win support from either major party. After he stepped down as president, he briefly served in the U.S. Senate again from Tennessee.

 

And finally, Chester A. Arthur, who took over upon Garfield's assassination, did not gain his party's nomination for a second term.

 

It's worth noting that all of these occasions occurred before the modern era of party primaries being decided by voters. These presidents had to win the approval of their own party officials, not the public at large. The closest scenario in the primary era was Lyndon Johnson in 1968, who ran for a second full term, but dropped out of the race after he only narrowly won the New Hampshire primary against Eugene McCarthy. This was considered a sign of a major weakness for an incumbent president. After Robert Kennedy joined the race, it became clear to Johnson that he would not win the nomination. On March 31, 1968, he announced he wouldn't run for another term.

 

It is my [completely] personal opinion that Sarah Palin could not win the nomination for president. I also believe the same is true of Romney, Huckabee, Barbour and Gingrich.

 

We only have two years left. We need to get started and find and support (yes, make them a millionaire) a WINNING candidate.

[righteousmomma]

You go Chickadee!

[AceRimmer]

Chickadee!

 

Sadly, I have to agree that Palin can't win either the GOP nod, or the general election. The LSM and RATS have ripped her to the point that her shrapnel will be the unwanted baggage that brings her down. Same thing goes for Newt.

 

As for Huckabee and Romney, I'm sure the RATS have enough dirt to bury them if they don't bury themselves. I still don't think Haley Barbour even wants to run, and the LSM will portray him as old and any other negative they can invent.

[Valin]

Chickadee!

 

Sadly, I have to agree that Palin can't win either the GOP nod, or the general election. The LSM and RATS have ripped her to the point that her shrapnel will be the unwanted baggage that brings her down. Same thing goes for Newt.

 

As for Huckabee and Romney, I'm sure the RATS have enough dirt to bury them if they don't bury themselves. I still don't think Haley Barbour even wants to run, and the LSM will portray him as old and any other negative they can invent.

 

 

[Guest areafiftyone]

It is interesting to me, as I read all the varying opinions in response to posted pieces in the TRR News and Opinion threads, that one recurring issue seems to be a dislike for politicians/activists earning money for appearances, book sales, etc. and becoming millionaires. And yet we expect these same individuals to run for office.

 

And how do they accomplish that? By being rich among other things. I've said it before . . . we also expect them to be powerful, forceful and charismatic; and yet when they are we have a tendency to condemn them. Soooo, what is it you/me/we all really want? To win, of course. But other than that? To think exactly like: Tea Party Express, Tea Party Movement, moderate, conservative, ultra-conservative or what?

 

My personal bottom line is to make certain NO candidate who believes in higher taxes, entitlements, out-of-control spending and anything to do with socialism is allowed to be elected no matter what! I want a strong, winning candidate.

 

By the way, if you believe Barack Obama is not going to be the next Democratic candidate, and that Hillary will be, I offer this ask.com response about the history on incumbent presidents:

 

Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office.

 

Pierce was our 14th President and served from 1853-1857. John Fremont defeated Pierce in his bid for renomination, making Pierce the only elected President (rather than a Vice President who succeeded to the position) to not gain his party's nomination for a second term.

 

None of the other three presidents had secured enough support in their own party to gain a nomination for a full term. Millard Fillmore, who took over when Zachary Taylor died in 1850, did not gain the Whig party nomination for a second term.

 

Andrew Johson, who took over after Lincoln's assassination, had a more complicated situation. Johnson had been elected as Lincoln's running mate as a "Union Democrat". Lincoln had hoped to unite the country with a southerner on the ticket during the Civil War in the election of 1864. But after Lincoln was assassinated and he ascended to the presidency, he faced a Republican congress that despised him. After being impeached -- and narrowly avoiding removal from office -- he attempted to win the Democratic nomination in 1868. Since several Confederate states hadn't yet rejoined the union to vote in that election, and he was not well-liked by northern Democrats either, he failed to win support from either major party. After he stepped down as president, he briefly served in the U.S. Senate again from Tennessee.

 

And finally, Chester A. Arthur, who took over upon Garfield's assassination, did not gain his party's nomination for a second term.

 

It's worth noting that all of these occasions occurred before the modern era of party primaries being decided by voters. These presidents had to win the approval of their own party officials, not the public at large. The closest scenario in the primary era was Lyndon Johnson in 1968, who ran for a second full term, but dropped out of the race after he only narrowly won the New Hampshire primary against Eugene McCarthy. This was considered a sign of a major weakness for an incumbent president. After Robert Kennedy joined the race, it became clear to Johnson that he would not win the nomination. On March 31, 1968, he announced he wouldn't run for another term.

 

It is my [completely] personal opinion that Sarah Palin could not win the nomination for president. I also believe the same is true of Romney, Huckabee, Barbour and Gingrich.

 

We only have two years left. We need to get started and find and support (yes, make them a millionaire) a WINNING candidate.

 

Okay you convinced me but you really have to stop begging! - I'll run! LOL!

[righteousmomma]

I still don't think Haley Barbour even wants to run, and the LSM will portray him as old and any other negative they can invent.

 

Lets face it: he would be totally unjustly caricatured and most likely mis leadingly stereotyped as the proverbial Boss Hogg Republican.

 

("Boss" Hogg's namesake was also Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America.)

[Chickadee]

Okay you convinced me but you really have to stop begging! - I'll run! LOL!

Hey, Wait! That was MY get-rich-quick idea.

[Valin]

Okay you convinced me but you really have to stop begging! - I'll run! LOL!

Hey, Wait! That was MY get-rich-quick idea.

 

 

If either of you (or anyone else) is considering a run for the WH, I'd like you to give serious consideration to your humble poster as VP.

I can be just as hard core as Dick Cheney and (with I feel is my real area of expertise) just as dumb (if not more so) than Joe Biden. Even though it would mean leaving my one bedroom apt., and and not work with carbon black, and move into government housing, move into a higher tax bracket, I'm willing to make the sacrifice.