Sunday, December 9, 2012

Gingrich: "GOP Can't Compete If Clinton Is Nominee" Media Leaves Out Qualifier "As Constituted" Palin Led GOP 2016 A Different GOP

VIDEO IS  AT THIS LINK

The Huffington Post has a clip at the link above of Newt Gingrich appearing to give away the 2016 presidential election if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's nominee.

This is an extraordinary statement coming from someone who, for a time, was the GOP's leading candidate for the nomination for the 2012 presidential election. What on earth can Gingrich be thinking by his comments?

"WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regularly brushes off the idea of a 2016 presidential bid. But if she were to run, at least one prominent Republican thinks his party would be completely outmatched.
"The Republican party is incapable of competing at that level," Gingrich said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press."
"First of all, she's very formidable as a person," he said. "She's a very competent person. She's married to the most popular Democrat in the country; they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination."
In addition to having Bill Clinton's support, Hillary Clinton would also have the backing of President Barack Obama, who will still be a "relatively popular president," Gingrich added. "Trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl." (read the rest at the link above).
If Clinton does run it can be well imagined that this clip will be repeated endlessly during her campaign. Also, given that Gingrich has hinted that he might consider another tilt at the nomination in 2016 if Hillary announces she will run then this clip would presumably be the end of any such ambitions for Newt.

However, as with so much in various fields,economics for example but most especially politics, it is the little qualifiers which gives an escape clause.

The first such is Gingrich saying that "presumably president Obama will still be relatively popular". The history of presidents second term endings finding the "relatively popular" is not too good as a glance at Nixon/Bush 1/Bush2/Carter/LBJ etc etc would attest. 

The playing field might be more than levelled in 2016 if history is a guide and might be tilting very much towards the GOP irregardless of whom the Dem's run. In point  of fact of course if there is a major recession in 2016 Hillary might not even bother to run.

The second qualifier is the key one. Gingrich quickly states "with the Republican party (as) constituted now" (which the Huffpost leaves out of their report). Of course come 2016 the Republican party will not be as constituted now even if the current leadership stays on place as the 2014 mid-terms will bring in fresh blood-including, presumably, more conservatives.

But the biggest change for 2016 would be if Sarah Palin decides to run. A Palin led party, with perhaps an Hispanic VP choice like Martinez or Rubio would be utterly different from the GOP "as constituted" now and would bring a massive ground game and the highest level of conservative voting support and could not only compete at that level" but win.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Palin Finishes Polling Year 5.40 Points Up At 54.25% Inexorable Rise Continues

Sarah Palin continues her seemingly inexorable polling rise as this end of year analysis from 
Election Meter.com (link at end of this page) shows.Over the 360 day polling period Palin has risen 5.40 points from 49.85%  to her current 54.25%


This is a remarkable result given that she has been shunned by the Republican establishment forces who kept her from the GOP convention in Tampa and pushed her to the campaign sidelines. Not using the power of an obviously popular Republican to energize the base, at least, must surely have been a major mistake by the Romney team.

PPP Polling has confirmed palin's popularity in a poll of Republicans which asked about 2016 presidential election preferences which showed she had a +42 approval rating.
Sarah Palin
+42 (66/24)



Election Meter.Com's polling showing Palin's recent sharp rise in support is even further clarified by taking the poll results out to 90 days as per this graph. 



"The talk of a brokered convention never seems to die down and one interesting finding on this poll was that Sarah Palin is far more popular than any of the actual Republican candidates in the race. Her net favorability is +48, with 68% of voters rating her favorably to only 20% with a negative opinion. That compares favorably to +29 for Santorum, +19 for Romney, and -26 for Paul.
Palin is someone GOP delegates might be able to unify around in the case of a hopelessly deadlocked convention. She is seen positively by Gingrich voters (85/7), Santorum supporters (80/10), and Romney ones (57/27) alike. "


And perhaps the most striking illustration of the true measure of her support is the poll from the commencement of polling by Election Meter.Com
Palin is up a massive 35 points points since 2010.


The new 5,912 vote EM Poll AT THIS LINK gives Palin a 54.25% approval rating. This is her sixth rating above 50% in this poll since early 2009 and shows the long struggle against media distortion she has had to undertake, so the slow and steady rise continues-here is Palin's polling over the last year;


Undertake the long struggle she has done indeed, and her tenacity seems to finally be paying, off as voters now are seeing her in a substantially positive light again.The following factors may also have been significant contributors to her continuous rise

Her strong statements on President Obama's handling of  the economy during the election have clearly elicited a  positive response. Voters look for strength of character and unwavering conviction which, whether one agrees with her views or not, Palin has in abundance


Her winning endorsements for high profile campaigns e.g. Deb Fischer's come from behind Senate primary wins, and Ted Cruz's remarkable rise in Texas- both of whom won their general election campaigns all with Palin's support. The perceived unfairness to Palin by the Romney team in hiring someone who has spoken negatively about to run his campaign, and of course their stonewalling Palin being invited to Tampa

Yes certainly, the Election Meter poll is an on-line poll and can be discounted to a degree because of that. However, when Palin was at her absolute nadir in this poll in 2010 at 19.2% her enemies would have seized on it as being representative of a general feeling. 


There is some degree of validity to that view, although it is distorted and extreme, but on the other hand the steady, seemingly inexorable rise since then must also reflect a wider reality-which will of course be ignored by her enemies.


The longer term graphs which, because of the time frame involved, must be valid in the wider context they support. Surely the absolute polling height of 72% in 2008 ) was a genuine reflection of reality at that time.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Palin Well Placed In PPP Polling's Look To 2016 With Top Four Favorability Rating

PPP Polling (D) which admittedly had an outstanding result in its 2012 presidential polling, has a look at GOP preferences for 2016.

Yes it is ridiculously early, but as an indication of rank and file thinking at this point there are some interesting points.

Sarah Palin has not given any indication, beyond a generalized statement, that she might run and it would be fair to imagine that the Republican voters have not looked at her in a substantial manner as a potential candidate at this point. Palin supporters see things in a different light of course. 

Given this non-determinate status for Palin, the fact that she places amongst the top seen big names might indicate, surely, that if she declared she woudl immediately vault up to amongst the very top.

Even with all the "we need an Hispanic" noise and media puff pieces about Rubio he is only eleven pints ahead of Palin. Further it would seem unlikely that Huckabee and Rice will run so the field is much narrower in reality and that means less of a blockage for Palin's rise.

Note too that Palin has the fourth highest favorability and net favorabilty ratings, both of which would rise if she declared.




Here is part of PPP's results and analysis, the whole post is

"PPP's newest national poll finds Marco Rubio as the early choice of Republicans for 2016. 18% would like him to be their nominee to 14% for Chris Christie, 12% for Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, 11% for Mike Huckabee, 8% for Condoleezza Rice, 7% each for Sarah Palin and Rand Paul, and 4% for Rick Santorum.
Rubio's ahead because of his strength with the most conservative wing of the party. Among 'very conservative' voters he's at 23% to 17% for Paul Ryan and 13% for Mike Huckabee. He also had the advantage with folks describing themselves as 'somewhat conservative' at 22% to 14% for Chris Christie and 13% for Jeb Bush. Christie has a big lead with moderates at 35% to 20% for Bush and 11% for Huckabee with Rubio all the way back at 5%. But there just aren't that many moderates left in the Republican Party.
Here's how all the Republican hopefuls stack up in terms of net favorability:"
Potential Candidate
Net Favorability
Paul Ryan
+59 (74/15)
Mike Huckabee
+58 (73/15)
Condoleezza Rice
+55 (73/18)
Marco Rubio
+51 (62/11)
Jeb Bush
+49 (63/14)
Sarah Palin
+42 (66/24)
Rick Santorum
+39 (56/17)
Rand Paul
+31 (53/22)
Chris Christie
+21 (49/28)


Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.


A Compendium Of Leftist Feminists Attacks On Sarah Palin; Hypocrisy From Steinem To Quinn To Taylor Marsh


Without going into any psychological or perhaps evolutionary underpinnings for the collective feminists hate, disparagement, condescension and utter hypocrisy towards Sarah Palin (a considered review of the feminists offering below would lead one to certain conclusions) it is best I think to let them speak for themselves.

One would consider that, surely, no matter what the degree of political differences feminists might have with Palin, that they would, at the very least, celebrate her various achievements in what they consider to be a patriarchal world. 

The fact that she has risen from utter Alaskan invisibility to be noted by millions, to be elected as a Governor and then to be one the most popular in history and then to run for the second highest office in the land is ignored, denigrated, ridiculed by the very women (with the rarest of exceptions) who might instead have celebrated the achievements-if not the person.

But Palin has committed the utmost leftist sin of walking the pro-life walk under the most challenging of circumstances. Perhaps one of her most lasting achievements will have been to expose the radical feminist left for the utter hypocrites and snobs they are. Again, here they are speaking for themselves in all those facets.

A classic piece of utter hypocrisy is exemplified by the
execrable "Taylor Marsh" (a die hard Hillary fan) who has deposited numerous anti-Palin attacks. Marsh has the utter nerve to find wonderment in Palin's achievements when it suits her to use Palin as a mechanism to bash Mitt Romney;  "Mitt Romney's Palin Problem Is A Republican Women's issue"     AT THIS LINK
********************************************************************
In an interview for @katiecouric, writer and activist Gloria Steinem responded to Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist, saying, "you can't be a feminist who says other women can't have an abortion". She also said Palin wants to make abortion "criminal and dangerous." This is of course utter rubbish. Palin has stated the issue is not one she would legislate for, or that the federal government should be involved in. It is an issue of pure democracy and a states rights issue. 

Palin is pro-life, but would see that relaxed where the mother's life is an issue, but those are her personal beliefs. She does not "want to make abortion criminal and dangerous" she wants the issue dealt with by voters where they so choose to address it.
Women's Media Center president Jehmu Greene is the other feminist interviewed.

Here is the video link
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6607715n&tag=api

********************************************************************

The "Flopping Aces" site reproduces an outstanding Andrew Breitbart attack: "The Elite feminist Attack machine"
on the "feminists" Kouric/Fey/Dowd who attacked Palin. He then introduces "Violet at the Reclusive Leftist" who turns out to be a rare and precious thing a fair minded leftist feminist who defended Palin. Again, a brilliant analysis by clever minds.

Here is the link
http://floppingaces.net/2009/07/05/the-elite-feminist-attack-machine/


************************************************************************
One Katie Halper on MSNBC describes Palin as "A selective opportunist feminist" and defines feminism, in an almost unparalleled example of pure leftist elitism, as "a set of beliefs that Sarah Palin doesn't have".

Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIByqTT4ZJI&feature=related
************************************************************************

Playwright (The Vagina Monologues)  Eve Ensler makes, as described by Bill O'Reilly, and condemned by Leslie Marshall, a vicious attack" on Sarah Palin. This on the Joy Behar Show. 
Ensler says of Palin "She's insane and has a level of intelligence that has not evolved... it's unbelievable that she should run for vice-president" Behar, of course, agrees.

Marshall (to give her her due she is a fair-minded liberal) in overviewing leftist feminists, firstly describes Palin's
genuine achievements as an elected administrator and advises
that "women are women's worst enemies"

Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eP5vTeR5pk&feature=related
************************************************************************

Here a discussion hosted by Laura Ingraham where conservative feminist Kellyanne Conway demolishes the leftist feminists attacks on Palin. Describing the root cause as jealousy "She (Palin) makes them (the spinster, childless (see T. Marsh) columnists especially) crazy with her pro-life and lifestyle" and advises that most such criticism comes from females.Sally Quinn has nothing to say in reply effectively and in fact and Conway calls her out for having written a column:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/09/03/cbs-wapo-s-sally-quinn-slams-palin-s-parenting-needs-rethink-her-prior  

"Palin's pregnancy problem" which puts the
lie to Quinn's spurious attempt at even handedness.


Here is the link to the Ingraham/Conway/Quinn interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqp3hWHPeA
************************************************************************

Columnist Marc H. Rudov calls them the “fascist feminists.”  He writes "These are the feminists in the media and elsewhere who detest Sarah Palin because of her role as a successful wife and mother and defender of the unborn. 

Palin’s decision to have a Down syndrome child, when 90 percent of these children are being aborted in the womb, has proven in dramatic terms not only that there are articulate pro-life women in America but that there are women who will take a leadership role on “culture of life” issues of concern to millions."

"The feminists and their allies in the media, who treat abortion as a human right,
when abortion destroys basic human rights, are on the defensive. 


Meanwhile, the culture war is back, and it is clear that most of the controversy over Palin is being driven largely by feminists in the media. On MSNBC, a lesbian
feminist, Rachel Maddow, is leading the assault. She is the latest addition to the far-left lineup at this poor excuse for a cable “news” channel.

“This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism,”

Rudov writes in his insightful article on the Newswithviews.com website. Palin “rose from hockey
mom to state governor without affirmative action,” he notes, and has “proved
publicly that women can succeed without being victims.”

What’s more, notes Rudov, “Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.”

Palin can never be forgiven for this. That is why she must be destroyed.

Beyond her role as a pro-life mother who loves her husband, Palin is a reminder to the feminists that what they are screaming for in the battle for the right to
“choice” is not only a human life but in many cases a disabled child, one of
the most innocent and defenseless among us."

Here is the related "Why Feminists hate Palin" Link
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-the-media-feminists-hate-palin/

************************************************************************

I wrote about this subject commencing with this extract. I have an utter loathing for McEwen at the arrogant and often foul mouthed "feminist" site Shakesville

"The vitriolic hatred of Sarah Palin by the radical feminists, as exemplified especially by the Blog “Shakesville,” shows, beyond doubt, the terrible dilemma and schizophrenic mindset the conundrum that is Sarah Palin has put such feminists into.

The entire article is at this link:
http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/radical-feminists-attack-palins-pro-life-stance-rather-than-celebrate-her-achievements/



************************************************************************






Governor Palin's Views On Jim DeMint Her Support Of Tim Scott & The Fiscal Cliff

From The Sarah Palin Information Blog:


Gov. Palin Congratulates Jim DeMint and Supports His Choice of Tim Scott

Posted by Dr. Fay on December 6, 2012
Tweeted by Governor Palin a little earlier:
.
We look forward to Jim DeMint’s new leadership at the Heritage Foundation, and we’re all grateful for his past leadership in the Senate.
.
.
.
A great choice! RT @PeterHambyCNN DeMint has made it known in Columbia that he wants Tim Scott to be appointed to his seat, sources tell CNN
.
Mike Flynn at Breitbart.com has the story:
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, often the conservative conscience of the Senate, will resign his seat next month and assume leadership of the Heritage Foundation. He will replace long-time Heritage President Ed Fuelner.
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will name a successor. She could name herself to the seat or tap a rising conservative figure like Rep. Tim Scott. DeMint’s replacement will then have to run for election in 2014. The state is already shaping up as a major battleground race for conservatives, with many grass roots organizations contemplating a primary challenge to Sen. Lindsay Graham.
The state is now set to have two marquee Senate races in 2014. Depending on who Haley names to replace DeMint, it could have a profound impact on political calculations in the state. Politicians who may have contemplated challenging Graham in a primary may instead focus on defeating DeMint’s successor.
.
Twitchy has the reaction on Twitter and Senator DeMint’s press release:
December 6, 2012
DeMint to Leave Senate to Lead the Heritage Foundation
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced that he will leave the Senate at the beginning of January to become the next president of The Heritage Foundation, the largest and most respected conservative think tank in America.
“It’s been an honor to serve the people of South Carolina in United States Senate for the past eight years, but now it’s time for me to pass the torch to someone else and take on a new role in the fight for America’s future.
“I’m leaving the Senate now, but I’m not leaving the fight. I’ve decided to join The Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas. No organization is better equipped to lead this fight and I believe my experience in public office as well as in the private sector as a business owner will help Heritage become even more effective in the years to come.
“I’m humbled to follow in the footsteps of Ed Feulner, who built the most important conservative institution in the nation. He has been a friend and mentor for years and I am honored to carry on his legacy of fighting for freedom.
“My constituents know that being a Senator was never going to be my career. I came to Congress as a citizen legislator and I’ve always been determined to leave it as citizen legislator. South Carolina has a deep bench of conservative leaders and I know Governor Haley will select a great replacement.
“One of the most rewarding things I’ve done in the Senate is work with the grassroots to help elect a new generation of leaders who have the courage to fight for the principles of freedom that make this country so great. I’m confident these senators will continue the legacy of conservative leaders before them.”
Jim DeMint was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998 after owning a successful advertising and market research company for twenty years. DeMint left the House after limiting himself to three terms and then was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and re-elected in 2010.
During his time in office, DeMint has been tireless advocate for Americans taxpayers. His goal has been to support and defend the Constitution, which was written to preserve liberty by restraining the federal government. Toward that end, he authored legislation to balance the budget, ban earmarks, replace the tax code, and reform our entitlement programs. He also led the fight against unconstitutional power grabs like the Wall Street bailout and Obamacare.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

National Review's Fund Takes The Conservative/GOP Split (It's Out In The Open Now) One Step Closer To The Rubicon

Once step closer to the Rubicon 

The National Review's John Fund writes "Conservatives Versus the GOP" (the fracture is not even hidden with that headline) and commences his article with this, massively important paragraph. I would go further and if the scenario that is envisaged plays out, i.e.  tax increases then more than de-funding of the GOP will take place, rather funding of the new third party will commence


"Conservative groups are sending written warnings to both congressional Republicans and the Republican National Committee. If Republicans sign on to a deal that raises taxes, they risk an open break with large portions of their base. “This is a time of testing for you,” more than 70 conservative leaders write in an open letter sent Friday morning to every GOP member of Congress. They warn that if a budget deal that raises taxes is passed with GOP fingerprints on it, conservatives will “see that the current leadership is not an acceptable alternative to the left. Conservatives would then likely repeat what they did in the 1970s, when they systematically and successfully undertook a multi-year effort to replace Republican congressional leadership."

You can read the rest AT THIS LINK

As it is proving difficult to keep up with the seemingly irreversible fissure that is opening up I will simply repeat my post on the matter from earlier today-the Rubicon is in sight. If the crossing commences it will be a wild and choppy swim but once on the other side I envisage a repeat of 1856

ORIGINAL POST; AT THIS LINK




PALIN TO GOP: 'THIS WON'T BE FORGOTTEN COME 2014' Will That Mean The Birth Of A Conservative Third Party Or Can Conservatives Wait That Long After Continuous Rebuffs?


It appears that the Rubicon is being approached. Whether a crossing is undertaken in 2014, before 2014, or at all appears to be up for consideration. But one thing is for sure-it is being considered.

The Breitbart post below has, as of this writing,over 600 comments. A cursory glance at them can't fail to see a seething resentment at the GOP establishment, and a number who are not only considering the formation of a truly conservative (possibly Palin led) third party, but are champing at the bit for it.

You can read the whole post by Matthew Boyle AT THIS LINK


Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Tuesday that she thinks House Speaker John Boehner’s purge of conservatives from powerful committees is a sign the GOP establishment is out of touch with America.

“We send good conservatives to D.C. to fulfill the promises they made to the electorate, and yet when they stay true to their word the permanent political class in their own party punishes them,” Palin said in a Facebook comment. “This won't be forgotten come 2014. Right now the GOP establishment is more concerned about the opinion of the media and the Georgetown cocktail circuit than they are ‘we the people’ who hired them. For all this new talk of how the GOP needs a ‘populist movement,’ it would do them good to remember they already have one; it’s called the Tea Party movement, and it won for them the majority they now enjoy in the House.”
On Monday, Boehner pulled conservative GOP Reps. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan from the House Budget Committee. The Speaker also removed conservative Republican Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Walter Jones of North Carolina from the House Financial Services Committee.
The  gist of Sarah Palin's Facebook post (reproduced here) is that the "permanent political class" as Palin describes the Beltway Establishment, comes down hard on those conservatives who were selected and elected by their constituencies, and who actually have the gall to stick to those principles when they get to Washington.

It may be that the apparent purge of conservatives from powerful committees by House Speaker John Boehner (apparent because no clearly defined reason has been given for the purge-which is again, a source of frustration and discontent for conservatives as it seems dismissive and high handed.) is not the final straw. 

However, it may be a weighty straw, and its weight may be such as to be approaching the load tolerance level that the poor rank and file camel can bear.

Given the loyalty the conservatives showed to the Establishment by, once again, trudging to the polls to vote for an "electable' centrist, one would have thought the Beltway elite would be bending over backwards to pacify the conservatives. 

Given Boehner's apparent attitude, this appears to not be the case. The rank and file can only take so much, the Romney teams dismissing Palin during the campaign was an affront, which she bore stoically, but with the Romney-ite loss, and their having zero credibility the gloves are off.

What happens next is, to a very large degree, very much in the hands of the GOP Establishment. If they continue on this path, then the responsibility for a complete fracture or conservatives sitting out the 2016 election will be their responsibility.  

One thing is certain though, there is a light at the end of this tunnel and it just may be a Palin driven express train which will plough straight through the "permanent political class"

Also on Breitbart relating to this matter;

RSC CHAIRMAN JIM JORDAN: BOEHNER PURGE 'UNHEALTHY FOR OUR PARTY'



Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.



Yahoo: "Sarah Palin:Leader of the Opposition" (Short Answer Is "Yes")

The fighting Mark Whittington enters the lists once again with the Palin banner flying proudly.  Here is an extract from his latest article at Yahoo:
*****************************************************************************
 Mark Whittington


COMMENTARY | Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared on the Sean Hannity Show on the Fox News Network and uttered the "S" word -- socialism -- to describe the policies that the newly re-elected President Barack Obama is embarking on


She also suggested that some of the disdain some people have for capitalism is a confusion of what the term means, that there is a difference between "crony capitalism," in which business curries favor from the government, and "free market capitalism," in which businesses grow through their own efforts. She also warned that historically burdensome governments have led to the downfall of empires. It was such a clearly stated analysis of the current crisis that has earned Palin the title of leader of the opposition.


No other American politician can assume that title. The Republican congressional leadership is constrained by their positions and the tendency of the GOP caucus to go wobbly. (Palin herself backed away -- sort of -- from calling them "wusses.") Other potential presidential candidates for 2016 such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, fine public servants through they are, have not yet achieved the national stature that Palin has.
The Atlantic provides a very interesting factoid. On the Yahoo! search engine, Sarah Palin's name was the third-most searched name in 2012, after President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney. (Google shows a slight drop off as 2012 proceeded, possibly explained by the fading of hopes for a Palin candidacy.) That demonstrates that despite perennial declarations of death of Palin's political prospects, her potency as a political force to be reckoned with is very much in evidence.
Palin, for a number of reasons, passed on running in 2012, perhaps to the detriment of Republican chances of winning the presidency. Mitt Romney is a fine man and would have made a good president, but he was unable to convince enough people that he was not, at heart, a north eastern moderate. Palin would certainly not have that problem in 2016. As a candidate she could cement her role as leader of the opposition and -- hopefully -- become leader of the country in fullness of time.



Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Election Analysis Shows Conservative House 2010 Races Won A Majority Of Women's Vote And Did Better Amongst Hispanic's Than Romney


The Polling analysis site "Battleground Watch has a post-election  analytical article which examines where the Romney campaign fell short. This analysis is based on work done by The Winstone Group which can be located via THIS LINK

The analysis by both Battleground Watch and The Winstone Group  is interesting for its revealing of statistics relating to Romney;'s loss but, apart from the actual numbers tells us little that was not obvious.However, the really interesting facts to emerge are the comparison between the 2012 result amongst the various groups-women/youth/Hispanics and the results from amongst them in both 2004 and most especially 2010.

The GOP establishment's message to the rank and file conservatives is that the party has to run an "electable" centrist to have any chance of winning as only such a person can capture the women's and Hispanic's votes.
Yet what do the actual results show as opposed to the self-serving requirements of the Beltway elite?

Its right there in the report. Where the GOP ran a clearly Tea Party conservative campaign as in 2010 they did outstandingly better than McCain and especially Romney. G.W. Bush was perceived as more of a conservative than Romney surely and yet he nearly won the majority of women's votes and did better than either McCain or Romney amongst Hispanics.

The really telling factor is that in what could only be considered a very conservative campaign, the House Republicans actually won the women's votes in 2010. 

These facts demolish the meme that Hispanic's and women will vote as monolithic groups for Democrat's and to some degree for centrists republicans. 

The facts are that when presented with a genuine conservative alternative to a genuinely leftist president/party they will support the conservatives at majority or enough of a substantial level to give the conservatives victory.

The GOP establishment is totally busted and its themes have no credibility and they must stand aside and let the conservatives have their Palin-ite candidates in 2014 and for the presidency in 2016