Question: If both Romney and Palin announce that they’re running, does Huck drop out and play kingmaker instead? He’d have an outside shot to win a head-to-head race with Romney on the strength of the “anyone but Mitt” vote from evangelicals and “true conservatives.”
Hey! I’m an Evangelical (well, a Christian who goes to a non-denominational church at least) and a “true Conservative,” and I’m for Romney! Many of my friends are as well, and none of them have ever said that they wouldn’t vote for Romney based off of his being a Mormon.
Rasmussen also had Romney ahead in a poll they took on July 6th, which had him with 25% of the vote. Palin came in second with 24%, Huckabee had 22%, and Gingrich had 14%. Both Pawlenty and Barbour polled 1%.
Here are the results from the new Gallup poll, conducted from July 10-12:
Mitt Romney: 26%
Sarah Palin: 21%
Mike Huckabee: 19%
Newt Gingrich: 14%
Tim Pawlenty: 3%
Haley Barbour: 2%
Comparing it with the Rasmussen poll, Romney gains a point, Palin and Huckabee lose three, Gingrich stays the same, and Pawlenty and Barbour remain irrelevant.
But here’s where the data gets really important:
No real surprises here. Among Republicans, Sarah Palin remains the most popular and unpopular candidate. And as you can see, virtually everyone on the Right has an opinion about her.
That’s not the case for Romney and Huckabee, who are both liked and disliked about equally, with many on the Right not having an opinion either way. Whether that’s a positive or negative for them remains to be seen.
Moving on to what all Americans think about the leading three candidates:
Palin’s numbers are about what’d you expect, and while having 43% approval isn’t shabby, you don’t want that to be accompanied with 45% disapproval. That’s why Huckabee has to be feeling pretty good about these numbers. He rivals Palin in popularity among all voters, but his unfavorables are 22 points lower. Granted, there are many who have “no opinion,” so it’s somewhat unfair to compare, but looking at the numbers we’re given, he polls well.
It’s hard to get a proper context on Romney’s numbers (which by themselves are pretty good) until you look at this next graphic:
In five months, Romney has improved his image dramatically. While his favorables are up just three points, his unfavorables have dropped 17 points. That’s HUGE. He still needs to get his favorables up, but as long as he keeps giving foreign policy speeches at the Heritage Foundation or appearing on Meet The Press to knock the Stimulus package, he will. Especially if the economy keeps dragging.
To recap, that’s a -26 point spread for Diageo/Hotline, -16 point spread for CBS, and a -7 point spread for Rasmussen, all within about a month’s time.
Thanks to Ed at HotAir for bringing this to the blogosphere’s attention. It’s from 2007, but as the saying goes, better late than never. While the MSM was busy covering Michael Jackson’s death, they were also busy not airing stories like these.
There’s no way to embed the video, so here’s the link, and here are some screen caps to preview what it’s about.
…with a four-minute interview of Martha Gillis, the aunt of 1st. Lt. Brian N. Bradshaw, who was killed on June 25 in Iraq when an IED exploded near his vehicle.
Fox, along with the rest of the media, should be embarrassed by their nonstop coverage of Jackson over the last two weeks. However, kudos are in order for Fox, who made a step in the right direction with this interview.
UPDATE at 12:36pm: Here’s a video from Fox News earlier today, in which they share a letter that was penned by the aunt of 1st Lt. Brian N. Bradshaw (third soldier down), castigating the media for focusing so much on Michael Jackson, and so little on our fallen soldiers.
Btw, notice how long it takes Fox to get rid of the little “Michael Jackson Tribute” video box? How pathetic. This is DURING A STORY about how irresponsible the media has been, and they still choose to keep it up there for nearly a minute.
Incident: Died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained in Konar Province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire and a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher.
Romney and Thune are incredibly eloquent and articulate speakers.
Romney has been getting favorable press coverage as fellow 2012 candidates have fallen by the wayside. Even if Sarah Palin announces that she’s running for president in 2012, Romney is now clearly seen as the frontrunner.
Romney’s knowledge, experience, and background on economic issues will offer a big boost to him if the economy doesn’t improve by 2011-2012.
Romney’s national favorablity rating has risen 10 points since February 2008, according to a Pew Poll that was just released. In the same time frame, his unfavorable rating has fallen 16 points.
Thune is also popular, as he has a high favorability rating (57%-32%) in South Dakota, according to a Research 2000 poll conducted in April. In that poll, when matched up with Tom Daschle, whom he beat in 2004, Thune wins the hypothetical rematch 53%-40%. That’s a clear sign of Thune’s popularity, as he beat Daschle by just 2% back in 2004.
Thune was just elected chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, making him the #4 GOP leader in the chamber. Before that, Thune had served as Republican Conference Vice Chairman and Chief Deputy Whip.
Thune is a staunch Conservative (more here), who received a score of “88.8% Conservative” by the National Journal on senate votes in 2008. He also receives high marks from the American Conservative Union. This would draw Conservatives who were wary about Romney to the ticket.
Thune and Romney are both married, (Romney for 40 years, Thune for 25) and have good kids who have stayed out of trouble.
Thune is a strong, committed Evangelical Christian who would draw hesitant Christians (“Oh no, Romney’s a Mormon!”) to the ticket.
Now, the negatives:
Romney and Thune are good-looking white men, which is HUGELY problematic for a variety of reasons. (“Too slick” factor (mostly with Romney), minority voters wouldn’t be drawn to the ticket, two white men against a black president, etc. etc.)
Thune’s name-recognition is quite low.
Many Conservatives see Romney as too moderate, and may stay home regardless of who he picks as VP.
Thune’s name-recognition is quite low. (So important, it has to be mentioned twice)
Romney needs to learn how to connect with “the common man.” Thune has a knack for that (how could you not in South Dakota?), but Romney doesn’t. Case in point, while speaking to a group of black kids on the campaign trail in ‘08, Romney thought it’d be hip to say, “Who let the dogs out?” Hey Mitt, that song is NINE YEARS OLD. That comment made it seem like you’d never talked to young, black kids in your life. You’re going to need to avoid awkward exchanges like that if you’re going to win in 2012.
Palin voters really don’t like Romney. If she doesn’t run, he’s going to have to convince them to vote for him. As I said above, Thune helps a little bit with that, but I don’t know how much.
The Mormon thing. Sad, but true.
Romney owns mutliple homes, a fact that Dems would exploit in a second. He recently sold two of them, but he still owns two more, worth several million dollars each.
Romney’s a flip-flopper. Yes, he’s come over to the right side (no pun intended) on many issues over the years, but voters don’t like flip-floppers. Especially Conservatives.
If the economy rebounds before 2011-2012, Romney doesn’t have a shot, regardless of what he says, does, or who he picks as VP. Right now, I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance of that happening, though I may be being optimistic. If it does rebound, however, Obama will win re-election. Simple as that.
So, what do you think? Are my positives and negatives accurate? Are there any major ones that I missed? Let me know.
Soldier Who Fought in Pink Boxers Home for 4th of July
FORT WORTH, Texas — The soldier who was photographed fighting the Taliban in his pink boxer shorts said Saturday he was glad to be back home in Texas after his yearlong deployment to Afghanistan — especially for the Fourth of July.
Specialist Zachary Boyd said he initially thought he’d get in trouble after an Associated Press photo first transmitted in May showed him with other soldiers behind sandbags wearing his “I love NY” boxers — plus flip-flops, a helmet and a bulletproof vest.
The Fort Worth soldier jumped up from a nap when his unit came under fire and didn’t want to waste time putting on his uniform.
“Every second counts,” he said.
Boyd said he had bought the boxers during a New York layover before deploying and chose pink because he thought his friends would laugh. As for a bright red T-shirt he also was wearing, Boyd said he wasn’t overly worried about drawing fire that day.
“The enemy already knew where I was,” Boyd said. “If they want to shoot at me, then that’s less fire they put on the guys that are pinned down, so that’s fine with me.”
All members of his unit came out of the fight safely, he said.
Now that he’s home in Fort Worth he said his boxers will be displayed in the 1st Infantry Division museum at Fort Riley, Kansas.
Although Boyd has been praised for his courage, the 20-year-old specialist said he was just doing his job.
“I don’t want any extra attention than the guys I served with because we all experienced the same stuff together; so I don’t feel like I should get any extra recognition,” Boyd said.
Since the photo gained worldwide attention, Boyd has received messages on social networking sites from hundreds of people around the globe as far off as China.
After spending a few days at home with his family, Boyd must return to Fort Hood near Killeen, where he is on active duty until February 2011. Boyd said he plans to begin training to become a helicopter pilot.
God bless Specialist Boyd, and all of the men and women in uniform fighting to keep us safe. As the great Winston Churchill once wrote, “We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.“
A very interesting update from NRO’s Jim Geraghty:
I am told the Associated Press is calling around to New Hampshire Republican political operatives asking if they’ve been talking to Sarah Palin about a presidential run. So far, no one’s given an indication that they are.
And this, from former Bush press secretary, Dana Perino:
I suspect the media is both concerned and delighted by her news. On the one hand, she’s great material — ridicule sells, and if she really does exit the stage, they’ll have to find someone else to pick on. On the other hand, the great 2012 GOP nominee chess match has already started, and this ensures that her name will be in the mix, even if she has no plans to launch a campaign.
Jonah Goldberg chimes back in, this time with substantive analysis:
If it’s 2016, why on earth do you resign now? Why invite all of the criticism about being a “quitter” and so on if you’re not running — and therefore don’t need to raise money — until 7 or 11 years from now? No, if she’s resigning to run it seems it has to be for 2012.
And here’s video from Bill Kristol on Fox Newsearlier this afternoon. He says this is a “shrewd” move, albeit a very big gamble, and that that he thinks she’s running in 2012. I’m still not convinced.
If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It’s an enormous gamble – but it could be a shrewd one.
After all, she’s freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues – and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska.
[...[
All in all, it's going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her pulling it off. But I wouldn't bet against it.
No way around it. She has just labeled herself a "quitter." Someone who doesn't finish what she started. What in the world is wrong with Republican governors? One self-absorbed politician after the next. Governors: "It's not all about you!"
Other than Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't fly from state to state doing campaign events, is there a more popular conservative Republican than Sarah Palin? Nobody draws bigger crowds, raises more money and energizes activist more than Palin.
If she's really done as a candidate, we may find out she ends up having a greater impact as an activist, prolific speaker and fundraiser for conservative causes than she would have had as a candidate.
Not finishing her first term will provide a major, major, major obstacle to any presidential bid. I thought a 2012 campaign would be a mistake; from today's comments, it's not clear whether Palin is still interested in that option.
But the moment she expresses an interest in a presidential bid, every rival, Republican and Democrat, will uncork the ready-made zinger: "If elected, would she serve the full four years, or quit sometime in the third year again?"
[...[
Palin is departing the national political scene. But that does not discount a comeback, as a quite different figure, at some far-off date. She quoted Douglas MacArthur in her resignation announcement, referring to "not retreating, but advancing in another direction." But the words most associated with Douglas MacArthur in American minds are "I shall return."
The speculation now, of course, will be to determine why she is resigning during her first term. Some Sarah fans will try to spin this as a shrewd political move to a possible presidential run, but what remains to be seen is if Governor Palin can not only overcome all of the stereotypes and ridicule the left has heaped upon her and her family, with much aid and assistance from mainstream media, but if she can overcome the stigma of being a quitter on top of that.
Palin's enemies have already taken today's news to suggest that her political career is over. It isn't. But Palin may also be thinking that her retirement from office will cause her critics to stop attacking her. She would be wrong to think so. Neither Palin nor the Palin-haters are going away.
The decision not to run again is eminently understandable. The decision to resign is not -- at least if the Governor is truly interested in a career in national politics. Does she truly think her chances at securing national office would be enhanced by failing to serve even one full term as Governor?
Yes, yes, I know -- Barack Obama won the presidency with the least impressive credentials of any modern candidate. But something tells me that as time goes on and voters evaluate his performance, they will become convinced that his inexperience was a problem, not a plus. And that phenomenon would not operate in Governor Palin's favor.
She shouldn't have said a thing without getting Matt Scully—or some similarly talented speechwriter—on the case first. As to how this decision plays out ultimately, we'll see. There's plenty of time if (as I assume) she wants to run in 2012, and she obviously has plenty of capital with Republicans. But not an auspicious start.
UPDATE at 1:05pm: One thought keeps running through my mind, as it looks like Palin won’t be running for president in 2012, and that is, “the coast looks crystal clear for Romney.” Hugh Hewitt will be quite pleased I would imagine.
UPDATE at 12:52pm:Breaking News from Fox News. Looks like Palin isn’t going to be heeding Jonah Goldberg’s advice:
Palin Announces She’s Quitting as Governor of Alaska
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shocked the political word Friday by announcing that she will step down at the end of the month and transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.
Palin made the announcement from her home in Wasilla, flanked by her husband, Todd, and family and state commissioners.
Palin’s decision now allows her to avoid the difficult task of running for president while serving as governor.
UPDATE at 10:47am: Jonah Goldberg addresses the Palin die-hards who have been sending him hate mail all morning. I’m pretty amazed about the lack of tolerance on our side when it comes to pundits offering constructive criticism of Palin.
Hey Palin fans, I don’t know if you remember this or not, but Goldberg is the author of a tiny little best-selling book called Liberal Fascism. Maybe you’ve heard of it? How about you stop attacking fellow Conservatives for merely having an opinion that’s different from yours? It makes you seem childish.
And this is coming from someone who would vote for Palin in a heartbeat if she became the nominee.
For starters, every time I see you on TV, you’re whining about unfair press coverage. Don’t get me wrong: Much of it is unfair, and some of it deserves a response. But it’s not presidential. It’s not even gubernatorial. You are constantly taking the bait, taking up the fights your biggest fans want you to take up.
Politics is ultimately about persuasion, and you seem entirely uninterested in that, preferring instead to play the victim. Well, victims don’t get elected president. Ronald Reagan was a laughingstock for liberals and despised by the press. But he didn’t whine or take the bait.
While I would agree that whining about unfair press coverage isn’t presidential, I’m trying to think of any other instances other than the Letterman feud where she’s done that. There may have been plenty, and I just missed them, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. In fact, Palin did an 11-minute interview with Hannity back in June, and not once did she mention the media.
Moving on:
Second, peddling a few platitudes and truisms about free markets and limited government is no substitute for really knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, you can talk well about the stuff you know — oil drilling, energy, etc. — but beyond your comfort zone, you fall back on bumper-sticker language that sounds fine to the people who already agree with you but is useless in winning over skeptics.
I completely agree with Goldberg here, and this is the exact reason why I don’t think she’s going to be ready until 2016. Because of how she’s perceived on the Left (attractive woman, funny accent, not very bright) she’s going to have to work twice as hard to convince all Americans that she’s really adept at understanding the crucial issues of the day.
Here’s the good news: You have time. Here’s the better news: You have something no one else in the party has — charisma.
[...[
Good politicians can learn how to win over audiences, but the great ones are born with the ability. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. Obama has it. You have it. You are the “It Girl” of the GOP.
Can’t argue with that.
Goldberg’s bottom line:
So here’s my advice. Stay home and do your job and your homework. You’ll still be a national figure come the primaries. But if you can’t surprise your detractors with your grasp of policy when you re-emerge on the national stage, you won’t win the nomination. More important, you won’t deserve to.
That’s exactly right. While Goldberg will be slammed by die-hard Palin fans, his piece is one of constructive criticism, which offers a mostly-accurate portrayal of her strengths and weaknesses.
Of course, two different bloggers over at Conservatives4Palin already have responses posted here and here.
Posted by Nick 
Posted by Nick 
Posted by Nick 
