A Problem of Shrinkage

[CountArach]

Interestingly, Palin has both the highest favorable and the highest unfavorable ratings of any.

She is the best known of those and as such has fewer undecideds. This is a huge liability in an election where you have a net favourability rating of +1 because there are few voters who will change their mind on you.

A far more acurate look would be the net favourability ratings which are +1 for Palin, +12 for Romney (Thought -12 in January last year when he was campaigning), -3 for Gingrich and +11 for Steele (Though admittedly, there isn'y much point measuring it when 63% of people don't know). That would imply that Romney is the best bet for the Republican Party as he has a good net favourability AND a lot of undecided voters. It is just a matter of not being painted as the plutocratic candidate which he was presented as last year. If he can avoid that he can at least keep his favourables in the right territory.

[Xiahou]

A far more acurate look would be

Accurate for what? I said she has the highest favorable and unfavorable of any in the poll. I didn't claim she was going to be the next presidential candidate.

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.

Regardless, the poll is certainly good news for Romney- who clearly has aspirations of running again.

[CountArach]

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.

Candidates often recover after the heated and intense partisanship of a campaign. Even Bush's approval is recovering from where it once was. Don't be surprised if she decides to run in 2012 (As I suspect she will) and has her favourability rating decrease. Several other Republican candidates *might* be able to blame her for the election loss in '08 and that would reduce her own party's favourability rating.

[Furunculus]

some local colour for you:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...vative-nation/

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.

[CountArach]

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.

People get more conservative as they get older. Besides, more Americans identify themselves as Conservative anyway and are thus more likely to say their views grow more conservative over time. The same thing can be seen when people are asked if X will make them more or less likely to vote for someone. This usually breaks along partisan lines, despite the reality being that people aren't changing their opinions.

Don't read too much into that poll.

[Lemur]

Well, Audra Shay has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

[woad&fangs]

*Yawn*

She's obviously an idiot but the author is stretching it a lot.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, Audra Shay has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

Not really...

CR

[Furunculus]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

The article doesn't really seem to canvas serious commentary from the Republican party leadership. It's very wishful thinking, mainly aimed at British Conservatives.

David Cameron is somewhat left of President Obama on most policies. Whilst the GOP might need to appeal more to the centre ground, one hopes that they won't adopt the vacuous pseudo-socialism of the UK Tories under Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne are, much like Brown and his cronies, merely flirting with the idea of fiscal constraint. No-one is finding the courage to talk about real, long-term fiscal responsibility in the light of the massive public debt that has been rung up. There is some light in the area of reducing the state's erosion of individual liberties but since David Davies has been cast into the darkness, and the rhetoric is very flimsy, one cannot believe that once in power, the Tories won't follow the same route as Labour.

Social conservatives in the GOP would be horrified at Cameron's "conservatism". Personally, I think the Republicans would benefit from laying off the hard-line social controls they have boxed themselves into, but I'm not American and have never really understood the paradox between the States' libertarian soul and the desire for the state to force fellow citizens into one brand of Christian morals.

I believe that many of the Western democracies would embrace parties that guarantee hard-line fiscal conservatism alongside more libertarian principles. Governments that really design smaller government, not just fire a few civil servants. Get out of the business of legislating morals (with the costs that incurs). Jeffersonian democracy, if you like.

But that also means getting shot of expensive foreign military ventures and reducing the power of corporations to influence public spending - and in so doing, removing the taxpayer "guarantee" for those corporations currently deemed "too big to fail".

I have yet to see a really "conservative" platform. It would be good to see the GOP taking this line. To do so however effectively, I suspect they might need to address the rampant anti-intellectualism that is another baffling aspect of the US political scene.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

[Lemur]

Yup, 2012 is Obama's to lose, and lose it he may.

[seireikhaan]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

We need a businessman/woman. I suspect that a "feel good" candidate isn't going to get too far in the event that the worst "recession that isn't a depression" stretches. That means tokens are out, so first women, indians, trannys etc probably own't have a chance - and Barry can't guilt us into voting for the first black president to be re-elected this time. If a woman comes around blasting through with business acumen, maybe she has a shot, but the novelty of her privates probably won't stir much when pensions are drying up and America is becoming more testosterone filled and less sensetive.

[Lemur]

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

[Xiahou]

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work,

So true!

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

Count me in as one of the "cool" kids. Romney has a little bit of an issue with flip-flopping and then there's his legacy to Massachusetts, Romneycare, which has resulted in exploding healthcare costs for the state since he implemented it.

"They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006."

Now, to me, he's not political dead meat by any stretch, but he's got enough question marks to keep me from running to him with open arms. But really, he probably is the best candidate we have on the table right now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25863

Please replace Chairman Michael Steele before I injure myself with laughter; he is a Democrat's wet dream, a walking parody. I do not quake with fear with this man leading the Republican party. He makes Howard Dean look sane.