Palin chances in 2012 are over

[Trajan]

well first off your link took us to the ccn page which then you click into to get to the palin poll page which has no example of the poll...just sayin'.

It takes me directly to the page and the first paragraph: 56% of Americans disapprove of Palin.

no offense but I suggest you always read the poll itself, the sample questions demographics etc. if you can, it all counts. Cnn doesn't present one, or at least I could not find it or a link to it.

anyway here are some tidbits, notice gallups summation at the end.

and of course one has to remember the context and week in question- the media almost to a ma was still set up on trying to re package their **** up, but there was no apology, they just reset and began their strawman which obama polished for them in his speech. frankly considering the week the poll came out an gallups finds, it was wash, which could be seen considering the media array running against her, impressive on that count.


http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf



Obama's response to Arizona shooting rated higher than Palin's, poll says - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Q 16-


1/16/2011

see pdf for breakdown

And






Palin's Image Worst Yet, Obama's Improves Slightly

Americans' opinions of three other major political figures -- President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin -- have varied little since last November. However, the current ratings for Palin and Obama are notable.


Palin's 38% favorable rating is her lowest (by two percentage points) since she became a well-known political figure after the 2008 Republican national convention, and her 53% unfavorable rating is her worst by a point. Palin has been a central figure in the recent debate over whether political rhetoric -- including hers -- was partly behind the Tucson shootings. Last week, she responded to these allegations by posting a much-publicized video response on the Internet. The recent news has not done much to change Americans' opinions of Palin, though.

Boehner Favorability Jumps; Obama Back Above 50%

And again, Palin's poll numbers dropped after she insisted on being at the center of the Giffords controversy.[/QUOTE]

the original q was if this 'speech' was the reason for a spike, Gallup says not quite, its been rising over the last months. looking at Q 16 in the pdf I laid out shows an interesting quotient re; the blurb i added regards the week of news and media overheating/hyping.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the original q was if this 'speech' was the reason for a spike, Gallup says not quite, its been rising over the last months. looking at Q 16 in the pdf I laid out shows an interesting quotient re; the blurb i added regards the week of news and media overheating/hyping.

NH's straw poll shows the uphill road she must walk.

 

[geauxtohell]

the original q was if this 'speech' was the reason for a spike, Gallup says not quite, its been rising over the last months. looking at Q 16 in the pdf I laid out shows an interesting quotient re; the blurb i added regards the week of news and media overheating/hyping.

Then Gallup's analysis differs from CNN. Either way, her conduct post Giffords didn't help her and it's indisputable that her numbers continue to plummet.

 

[Trajan]

If I may, I think what you mean is its not a speculative turn over device for the short term..... Its a 'hedge'.

"Hedge" against what? I suspect the fact that most people who are buying gold are hanging onto it and not actively trading it is a large part of why the market is inflated.

Furthermore, if it all goes to shit, who are you going to trade your gold with and for what? If we still lived in a society where everyone farmed, you might be able to trade your gold (at a much lower value) for thinks you can eat. However, the value of gold would still plummet as the market would correct. Furthermore, that's contingent on if people would even accept it. You can't eat or drink gold. It would make more sense to have livestock and trade for hay or chickens or gasoline. Something that would actually help you get through the day.

Also, if you have gold, you will need to be able to secure it.

I am not hip on the whole "the sky is falling!" mentality. I think we will be fine. I am just pointing out that the people who buy gold as a security blanket are engaged in some fanciful thinking.

I have gold, here, plus certificates for some. I bought gold a while back at $998, if I need or want cash for a big ticket item, I go to an exchange and take the gain.......I have a mental stop created, if the market seems to be tailing back, when I hit my chicken shit mental reserve, I sell most of it back.

Theres nothing to be hip about or sky falling, its a hedge against inflation, which especially in the food sector is starting to move.

My fanciful thinking will result in say me buying $ 300 dollars more worth of goods for your same $998.00 ( spot close on Friday was 1343.00)....you get that right?

 

[Trajan]

the original q was if this 'speech' was the reason for a spike, Gallup says not quite, its been rising over the last months. looking at Q 16 in the pdf I laid out shows an interesting quotient re; the blurb i added regards the week of news and media overheating/hyping.

Then Gallup's analysis differs from CNN. Either way, her conduct post Giffords didn't help her and it's indisputable that her numbers continue to plummet.

Uhm okay, but I never said her numbers weren't down, I just don't think, along with gallup that the 'speech' caused some mass disaffection.

Cnn doesn't offer an 'analysis', they didn't do their own poll GTH, that pdf came from the Hill which links to a wash post ABC poll, they just piggy backed and posted an 'article' speaking to the results. Gallup IS a polling org.

oh, I didn't use Rasmussen on purpose by the way to avoid any debate over 'honesty' etc. even though they usually poll likely voters (LV) which is more accurate than Gallups (A) anonymous sampling.

 

[geauxtohell]

Uhm okay, but I never said her numbers weren't down, I just don't think, along with gallup that the 'speech' caused some mass disaffection.

Cnn doesn't offer an 'analysis', they didn't do their own poll GTH, that pdf came from the Hill which links to a wash post ABC poll, they just piggy backed and posted an 'article' speaking to the results. Gallup IS a polling org.

oh, I didn't use Rasmussen on purpose by the way to avoid any debate over 'honesty' etc. even though they usually poll likely voters (LV) which is more accurate than Gallups (A) anonymous sampling.

From the article I linked:

Probably not directly, but the public may have been turned off by her reaction to the controversy surrounding that website," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Poll results released earlier this week show that most Americans do not blame her website for the shootings in Arizona. But women and independents - two groups that tend to prefer civility and bipartisanship - may have disliked her combative reaction to suggestions that the website was involved."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Jan. 14-16, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN did, in fact, conduct their own poll and that her reaction to the Giffords shooting factored into the issue.

 

[Trajan]

Uhm okay, but I never said her numbers weren't down, I just don't think, along with gallup that the 'speech' caused some mass disaffection.

Cnn doesn't offer an 'analysis', they didn't do their own poll GTH, that pdf came from the Hill which links to a wash post ABC poll, they just piggy backed and posted an 'article' speaking to the results. Gallup IS a polling org.

oh, I didn't use Rasmussen on purpose by the way to avoid any debate over 'honesty' etc. even though they usually poll likely voters (LV) which is more accurate than Gallups (A) anonymous sampling.

From the article I linked:

Probably not directly, but the public may have been turned off by her reaction to the controversy surrounding that website," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Poll results released earlier this week show that most Americans do not blame her website for the shootings in Arizona. But women and independents - two groups that tend to prefer civility and bipartisanship - may have disliked her combative reaction to suggestions that the website was involved."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Jan. 14-16, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN did, in fact, conduct their own poll and that her reaction to the Giffords shooting factored into the issue.

fine, can you link to the poll please.

and- "Probably not directly, but the public may have been turned off"

Probably?...... may have? if the poll doesn't speak to this, then I am not sure whats important about it? we already knew she was tailing off for months.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no you apparently continue to fail to adequately comprehend English as it is written... or, willfully do so, and tis is an old story where you get to decide what the boundaries are in a debate so as to make yourself right again.

try it one more time....

What percent of tv owners/users do not have cable/satellite, but only networks?

thank you. you see the point it appear, and you should add on that Q what % also carry fox news, as in O' rile' me, smith, bair et al, fox is number one on cable, big deal. what is their competition?

thats the key, as in share of an available audience. thats why the comparison don't really mean a lot, I have not seen one have you? We can only infer from what the total numbers of viewers Neilson ( a flawed rating syctem if you ask me anyway) tells watches net news and cable news....

Television in roughly 115 million homes, Foxnews in roughly 85 million homes.

 

[Synthaholic]

Palin is at 19% favorable in the latest CBSnews poll.

LOL, a CBS poll.

Which polling firm is more respectable, simpleton?

 

[Trajan]

What percent of tv owners/users do not have cable/satellite, but only networks?

thank you. you see the point it appear, and you should add on that Q what % also carry fox news, as in O' rile' me, smith, bair et al, fox is number one on cable, big deal. what is their competition?

thats the key, as in share of an available audience. thats why the comparison don't really mean a lot, I have not seen one have you? We can only infer from what the total numbers of viewers Neilson ( a flawed rating syctem if you ask me anyway) tells watches net news and cable news....

Television in roughly 115 million homes, Foxnews in roughly 85 million homes.

excellent..can you link to that please?

 

[Iowa10000]

the best thing in my life that could happen out side of my stocks going wild would be for M. Bachman and S. Palin getting together on the republican ticket, OMG would that be a world beater of a combination.
But now with Palins hubby being whispered about with adultry, if true it most likely that Palin will head straight to where her Alaska show has gone, in the shitter.
That leaves the idiot M bachman, who if she wasn't running in a 80% republican stronghold couldn't get elected to dog catcher in MN.
Oh make my day and tell me I'm not dreaming and these two will be the dream team for repugs in the next election, DUMB AND DUMMER. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

thank you. you see the point it appear, and you should add on that Q what % also carry fox news, as in O' rile' me, smith, bair et al, fox is number one on cable, big deal. what is their competition?

thats the key, as in share of an available audience. thats why the comparison don't really mean a lot, I have not seen one have you? We can only infer from what the total numbers of viewers Neilson ( a flawed rating syctem if you ask me anyway) tells watches net news and cable news....

Television in roughly 115 million homes, Foxnews in roughly 85 million homes.

excellent..can you link to that please?

No, you can look it up yourself. It was your claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trajan can do his own research. The far far non GOP right and non Dem left love to assert without evidence then ask for evidence to rebuttal. They are a bit confused on their obligations in making claims.

 

[Trajan]

Television in roughly 115 million homes, Foxnews in roughly 85 million homes.

excellent..can you link to that please?

No, you can look it up yourself. It was your claim.

my claim? I never made a "claim" I said; " I had not seen one", I said "We can only infer"...right there in the thread? I said to you; "excellent".....and asked you to please post the link...wtf? you obviously looked it up, (???)...

so, in other words, **** you look it up yourself....nice.....got it.

 

[Trajan]

Trajan can do his own research. The far far non GOP right and non Dem left love to assert without evidence then ask for evidence to rebuttal. They are a bit confused on their obligations in making claims.

you really really need to learn how to read , I am dead serious. I don't know if you really are dysfunctional or just faking it..

go thank your self....

 

[Rinata]

The facts are simple..

Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords

Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric

Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"


Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters

Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.

Its a stupid post, how could something affect someone if they never heard of it? Would it affect someone in another country?

Who never heard of what?? It would be nice if you could be more succinct with your posts.

 

[Rinata]

Did I say that? But what the hell with a failed economy under his belt if people want to continue supporting him more ******* power to them

You didn't answer the question, Rebecca. Yes or no.

If people can support a president who has a failed economy and has not made an effort to fix it yes I beleieve Palin has a better chance than obama. Cyndie

Proof?? Based on what?? Your hatred of the president doesn't count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You didn't answer the question, Rebecca. Yes or no.

If people can support a president who has a failed economy and has not made an effort to fix it yes I beleieve Palin has a better chance than obama. Cyndie

Proof?? Based on what?? Your hatred of the president doesn't count.

bigrebnc is not big on real evidence, but loves to shout a lot about nothing. He has no proof for you. He simply hates the idea of a black president.

 

[rightwinger]

If people can support a president who has a failed economy and has not made an effort to fix it yes I beleieve Palin has a better chance than obama. Cyndie

Proof?? Based on what?? Your hatred of the president doesn't count.

bigrebnc is not big on real evidence, but loves to shout a lot about nothing. He has no proof for you. He simply hates the idea of a black president.

Prepare for bigracist to start screaming...

Racecard! Racecard!

 

[Rinata]

The facts are simple..

Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords

Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric

Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"


Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters

Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.

hahahaham, why is so hard for people to grasp. because the MAJORITY of the American people don't AGREE with you useful tools.

How do you know that?? You don't. Your mind is closed to learning anything, so you just throw stuff out there. It would be nice if you sometimes provided some facts and not just your non-objective opinions.