Sarah Palin Not First Choice for 90+% of Educated Republicans

If Romeny gets the nom then we are all screwed. That man is about as conservative as GWB was :cuckoo:

We need a REAL conservative in the Oval, not some progressive with a "R" behind his name.
 
I actually hope Palin doesn't get the nom even though she is slightly better then Romney. She pretty much has her "positions" handed to her by her advisors. Kinda like all the IL state reps. They all got their daily phone call with a big injection of how to think for the day from the Chi Town crooks.
 
Generally, the more education a Republican has, the less likely they are to support Ms. Palin to lead the Republican Party.

Three recent surveys of Republican primary voters suggest significant divides in support for Ms. Palin based on the educational attainment of the voter. A poll released this morning by Marist College show Ms. Palin as the first choice of 17 percent of Republicans who have not graduated from college, giving her a slight lead among that group. But her support is just 7 percent among Republican college graduates, which placed her fifth behind Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingirch and Chris Christie.

A Quinnipiac poll, likewise, finds Ms. Palin with the support of 22 percent of Republicans who have not graduated from college, but of 10 percent of those who have. A CNN poll, meanwhile — using a slightly different criterion that focuses on whether voters attended college, whether or not they graduated from it — finds Ms. Palin drawing 20 percent of Republican voters who haven’t attended college, but only 9 percent of those who have.

gopcollege.png

Palin Draws Limited Support Among College-Educated Republicans - NYTimes.com

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Romney winning the nomination in 2012. Christie would be a fascinating choice as well.

Oh goody!

In other words, elitists are less likely to support Palin.

Yeah, we should look to elitists "conservatives" like David Brooks who went gaga over the "crease" in Obama's trousers.

Yes, we can't have the "rabble" picking our candidates.

We need candidates the elites want like John McCain.

Oops! He lost!

But try telling us we need to follow the elites. Yeah that will work.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
COOPER: From a nonpartisan perspective, David, I mean clearly she has energized a core conservative base, but she has certainly also energized Democrats against her and McCain and clearly now it seems like some conservatives, I mean some conservatives Peggy Noonan and others, kind of rethinking.

GERGEN: I agree with that. I think that Bay is absolutely right. She did enormous good for John McCain early on. But increasingly her positives are going down, her negatives are going up. They're higher than her positives now. And she is rallying other people outside of the base of the Republican Party to support Obama.

And they think that she's a very risky choice. So you know, from that point of view -- and also I have been surprised by the number of conservative columnists, like George Will and Peggy Noonan, David Brooks today in the "New York Times" talking about Obama's temperament, how well suited he was and how impressed he was.

There are a number of conservative intellectuals who have really come the other way. It's been quite, quite interesting.

BUCHANAN: You hit it on the nose. Intellectuals, intellectuals, they aren't the ones that are in there and fighting for our causes. You know, those who really know about this Republican Party and about the conservative cause --

COOPER: Intellectual is a dirty word now?

BUCHANAN: They are fully, fully behind Palin. And to suggest her ratings are up, her negatives are up, that's her job. She's the attack dog, for heaven's sakes.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Intellectuals NOT WANTED in the Republican Party.

Maybe because "intellectuals" have been so damn wrong historically.

Intellectuals gave us communism. Intellectuals thought up facism and the "superman."

Intellectuals thought up keynesian economics.

And finally intellectuals, told us Obama would be the perfect "post racial" president.

Again, "intellectuals" prove to be DEAD WRONG.

Keep your intellectuals, I prefer people who know what the hell they are doing.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
I like Christie. I am not sure about Romney yet....need to study on him. Huckabee is a hater, not supporting him

Interesting Op, Toro. It's my contention the GOP is a bad fit for people without much clear idea about fiscal policy and with strong desires to carry on a "socially conservative" agenda.

Many Americans, a vocal and varied segment of the public at large, have now convinced themselves that educated elites—politicians, bureaucrats, reporters, but also doctors, scientists, even schoolteachers—are controlling our lives. And they want them to stop. They say they are tired of being told what counts as news or what they should think about global warming; tired of being told what their children should be taught, how much of their paychecks they get to keep, whether to insure themselves, which medicines they can have, where they can build their homes, which guns they can buy, when they have to wear seatbelts and helmets, whether they can talk on the phone while driving, which foods they can eat, how much soda they can drink…the list is long. But it is not a list of political grievances in the conventional sense.

Historically, populist movements use the rhetoric of class solidarity to seize political power so that “the people” can exercise it for their common benefit. American populist rhetoric does something altogether different today. It fires up emotions by appealing to individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power. It gives voice to those who feel they are being bullied, but this voice has only one, Garbo-like thing to say: I want to be left alone.

A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets.

Welcome to the politics of the libertarian mob.

The Tea Party Jacobins by Mark Lilla | The New York Review of Books

I always thought "social" was a bad word for conservatism.

There are the fiscal issues and then there are the moral issues.

Trying to separate them, always seemed to me, like trying to separate rights from responsibility.

You really can't have one without the other.

Those that always try, I have noted, never succeed, because to abandon moral (or if you like social) conservatism is to embrace the alternative, which is liberalism. They do so either by full committment to liberalism or by simpley turning the blind eye.

It's like Nazi Germany. Not everyone in Germany, actively murdered people. Some didn't actively murder, but they knew about the murders, and did nothing to prevent them.

Same can be said for abortion. There are those actively supporting abortion. There are many more, that know abortions means killing a child, but are not willing to lose friends, or be criticized for opposing abortion. They simply help abortion along by turning a blind eye.

Either way, they are embracing the liberal agenda.

The "fiscal" conservative, who ignores this reality, will soon ignore other realities.

Which is why "fiscal" conservatives slide into full fledged liberalism sooner or later.

Take a look at David Brooks.
 
Sarah Palin would be a much better President than the massive failure in there now.

sure she would.

:rofl:
well, could she really be much worse?
LOL

and out of that list, Romney would be my choice

Mitt Romney is a fraud.

Mit Romney is a bigger flip flopper than John Kerry.

I judge a man by his DEEDS not his words.

Romney's deeds as Gov WERE NOT CONSERVATIVE, they were as far left AS OBAMA!

How UTTERLY STUPID do people have to be to glom onto Romney as the answer to Obama, when there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romneycare and Obamacare?

Romney went on record as being for abortion, gay marriage, banning the Boy Scouts, on and on and on.

Romney is as liberal as OBAMA!

I judge a man by his ACTIONS. He led his state as liberal as Ted Kennedy and once he has presidential aspirations all of a sudden he starts talking conservative to fool the REST OF THE COUNTRY.

And you some of you people are stupid enough to buy it?

What difference is there between Clinton talking like a conservative to fool people and Romney doing it?

YOU GUYS CANNOT BE THIS DAMN STUPID.

You vote for Romney you might as well vote for Obama. That's no lie.

If you don't believe me. Deny all this EVIDENCE!

Romney haunted by liberal past

Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President

American Thinker: Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President

PolitiFact | Romney haunted by liberal past
"Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' "
(NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!)
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
Video of Romney vs Kennedy 1994 debate.
The Mitt Romney Deception

Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group

  • "Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's 'commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose' in a letter on Wednesday."
    - Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002
The Mitt Romney Deception


Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486

The Mitt Romney Deception

Homosexual "Rights"

Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists

The Mitt Romney Deception

Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics

The Mitt Romney Deception

That's just some of the evidence.

NO WAY is Romney a conservative. He's as conservative as Arlen Specter!
 
I can't believe that Palin beats Ron Paul, even in the group of educated Republicans.

If anything, Ron Paul should be BEATING Palin in the intellectual group. He has a professional degree!
 
I can't believe that Palin beats Ron Paul, even in the group of educated Republicans.

If anything, Ron Paul should be BEATING Palin in the intellectual group. He has a professional degree!
you gotta face it, Ron Paul comes across as a kook
you'd be better served by Gary Johnson
 
I can't believe that Palin beats Ron Paul, even in the group of educated Republicans.

If anything, Ron Paul should be BEATING Palin in the intellectual group. He has a professional degree!
you gotta face it, Ron Paul comes across as a kook
you'd be better served by Gary Johnson
Oh, I'm pulling for Johnson 100%.

I think Ron Paul belongs in this House leadership position (the Monetary head or something I believe)...the hearings with Bernanke are going to ROCK.
 
.... I am not sure about Romney yet....need to study on him. ....
I suppose you chose not to pay much attention during the last Presidential election. I am not surprised at your ignorance at all.

Better to be more like you?? Just let Rush or Beck tell you the best choice and then run with it?? Don't read up on the candidates and find out as much as you can about them in the next 2 years. The candidates and issues could be very different than what they were in the last presidential election. You don't pick a president in 2012 based on information from 2008.

You've said some stupid things before, but you have topped yourself with this one. It convinces me more than ever that you just want to fight and be obnoxious. You're not the least bit interested in discussing politics.
 
Seems like she's not first choice with Mort Kondracke either!!

Fox contributor Kondracke calls Sarah Palin a "joke"
November 04, 2010 2:14 pm ET by Ben Dimiero

As reported by Politico's Keach Hagey, Fox contributor Mort Kondracke thinks Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin "are responsible for the fact that the Senate did not go Republican" due to their support of candidates Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, and Joe Miller. Discussing whether Palin could be the GOP nominee in 2012, Kondracke said that she is "a joke even within her own party" and "the idea that she would be the presidential nominee is unthinkable."

Kondracke has previously had harsh words for Palin, saying during an appearance on Fox News' Special Report in 2008 that she is "utterly unqualified to be President. She is the Dan Quayle of - she's worse than Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle at least had served as a senator and was, you know, and was conversant with national issues."

Fox contributor Kondracke calls Sarah Palin a "joke" | Media Matters for America
 
:lol::cuckoo:

why not just make it 100% of those Edumacated Republicans?

good grief...and HELL no to Romney.

As one of those 'independent' voters that both parties need to attract, can I just say - for the record - that hell will freeze over before I vote for Palin. Romney, on the other hand, I would consider.

Disclaimer: Consider does not mean vote for, it means I would at least look at voting for Romney.
 
:lol::cuckoo:

why not just make it 100% of those Edumacated Republicans?

good grief...and HELL no to Romney.

As one of those 'independent' voters that both parties need to attract, can I just say - for the record - that hell will freeze over before I vote for Palin. Romney, on the other hand, I would consider.

Disclaimer: Consider does not mean vote for, it means I would at least look at voting for Romney.

Steffie just spends a lot of time being angry and drooling at the mouth. Her voting choices are based on who she thinks will most annoy the world.
 
.... I am not sure about Romney yet....need to study on him. ....
I suppose you chose not to pay much attention during the last Presidential election. I am not surprised at your ignorance at all.

Better to be more like you?? Just let Rush or Beck tell you the best choice and then run with it?? ....
I suppose that would be intended to cut like a knife, but the moron doesn't know that the only time I ever know what Rush or Beck say is when some obsessed lefty posts about what was said.

Idiot.
 

Forum List

Back
Top