Page 1 of 1
#1 Palin's Popularity Plummets, Dems Continue To Whack Away
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:59 am
by frigidmagi
Huffingtonpost
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's standing among the American public has plummeted in recent weeks, as the potential 2012 presidential candidate has weighed in forcefully (and inaccurately) into the health care debate.
A new CNN Poll shows that Palin's favorability rating has fallen seven percentage points since May, from 46 percent to 39 percent. Anything under the 50 percent mark is considered problematic, especially when the politician is a known quantity (only five percent of the public said they had never heard of the former governor). Fully 48 percent of those polled said they had an unfavorable impression of Palin.
The same poll found that the man who tapped Palin to be a vice presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ..) had also seen his favorability rating drop by seven percentage points. But the Arizona Republican still is viewed positively by 51 percent of the public.
CNN's findings are, of course, just a snapshot of public perception at a given time. But they do come as Palin has begun to make her first political steps in her post-gubernatorial career. Last week, the Alaska Republican posted a Facebook message declaring that President Obama wanted to set up "death panels" to determine which sick and elderly patients would be euthanized.
Meanwhile, Palin's partisan detractors are determined to keep her as the face of the opposition.
On Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a grassroots organizing email, blasting Palin for her "outrageous" claim.
"While Palin's attack is a complete fabrication, the GOP is closing ranks to defend these outright lies. Over the weekend, former Speaker Newt Gingrich stood by Palin's bizarre 'death panel' accusation on national TV," the email reads. "But this is how we'll beat Palin and Gingrich's shameless fear-mongering - by every one of us spending every day aggressively fighting back with the facts. That's why the DCCC has put together Health Care Fact Check Cards debunking GOP myths on health insurance reform with the real facts."
Derek just so we have this written down somewhere, on December 2012 or so I'm gonna want a peanut butter chocolate chip cookie.
#2
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:15 am
by SirNitram
While this one is undoutably true, can we possibly ban the use of the HuffPo as a source? I feel our forum is too classy for that toxic swamp of anti-vacciners.
#3
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:36 am
by frigidmagi
You want to start banning news sources? No offense but that makes me feel a bit queasy.
#4
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:32 am
by SirNitram
frigidmagi wrote:You want to start banning news sources? No offense but that makes me feel a bit queasy.
On the other fork of the tongue, would you support folks posting from WorldNetDaily or it's other yellow papers, so we have Bat-Boy updates?
#5
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:35 am
by frigidmagi
Expect this isn't a tabloid. I mean crap we haven't even disallowed Fox News Nitram.
#6 Re: Palin's Popularity Plummets, Dems Continue To Whack Away
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:46 am
by Derek Thunder
frigidmagi wrote:Derek just so we have this written down somewhere, on December 2012 or so I'm gonna want a peanut butter chocolate chip cookie.
I still think that Palin represents the intersection of frontier spirit, anti-intellectualism, and right-wing movement politics that will allow her to win and that has been so irresistible to Americans in the past. Say what you will, she's not a "party insider," and like her gubernatorial run in 2006, she's able to turn out a highly-energized cadre of supporters willing to knock on doors and organize. I think she's probably the only republican that can even come close to matching Obama in terms of ground-game politics.
However, it depends on whether Obama continues to alienate his progressive supporters. If he can win them back, then I'm sure he could probably carry 2012. Right now though, I see an increasing disillusionment among his supporters regarding health care, the environment, Iraq/Afghanistan, and civil rights.
#7
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:02 pm
by rhoenix
As for HuffPo, their reporting is usually good - but they do occasionally get into the bullshit jar and take a swig.
You know, like other sources do sometimes?
#8
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:15 pm
by fgalkin
frigidmagi wrote:You want to start banning news sources? No offense but that makes me feel a bit queasy.
HuffPo is not a news source. It's a news aggregation blog.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
#9
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:39 pm
by General Havoc
fgalkin wrote:frigidmagi wrote:You want to start banning news sources? No offense but that makes me feel a bit queasy.
HuffPo is not a news source. It's a news aggregation blog.
Which is not relevant to its quality as a citation for discussion. Lampoon it all you want publicly if you think they're off their rockers, but I'd not start banning websites wholesale because you disagree with their editorial content.
#10
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:47 pm
by fgalkin
General Havoc wrote:fgalkin wrote:frigidmagi wrote:You want to start banning news sources? No offense but that makes me feel a bit queasy.
HuffPo is not a news source. It's a news aggregation blog.
Which is not relevant to its quality as a citation for discussion. Lampoon it all you want publicly if you think they're off their rockers, but I'd not start banning websites wholesale because you disagree with their editorial content.
Not relevant to this discussion?
frigidmagi wrote:You want to start banning news sources?
I've pointed out that HuffPo is
not a news source. If that's acceotable, I might as well start citing Wikipedia's news section.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
#11
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:45 am
by General Havoc
No, it is not relevant that they are a news aggregate rather than a news source. Nitram was not suggesting that they be banned because of their nature as a news aggregator, he was suggesting doing so because he objected to their editorial slant. "Toxic swamp of anti-vacciners" was his term. I don't follow Huffington, and thus can't gainsay that characterization, but I would prefer not to have entire websites declared off-limits due to such matters, regardless of whether they create the news or merely aggregate it.
Look, if you feel they're unreliable, point that out in discussion, but it makes no sense to say "Well, it was on Huffington, so clearly it's crap", which is what you're saying in tossing them altogether. We've yet to even comment on the substance of the article.
I just don't like the idea of going down the path of banning websites that a given person doesn't agree with.
#12
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:39 am
by SirNitram
I'd say being anti-vaccine is alot more than a disagreement with a person as opposed to a sizable branch of science, but the point is taken.