Dave Weigel has already covered the fact that Sarah Palin has perhaps received too much credit for the wins of some of her endorsed candidates on Tuesday night. He's correct- the victories of Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad, and Carly Fiorina hardly suggest Presidential momentum for Palin in those states.
Our South Carolina polling found that among supporters of Nikki Haley 27% wanted Palin to be the party's nominee for President in 2012 compared to 25% for Newt Gingrich and 21% for Mitt Romney. An advantage sure but nothing earth shattering- the Palin endorsement helped Haley but it wasn't a game changer by any means.
The Palin endorsement of Branstad was completely meaningless. Its impact was limited by the lateness of it and Branstad's lead in the polls declined after the Palin nod- that doesn't mean it hurt Branstad but simply that it was irrelevant.
Our California polling found that when supporters of Fiorina looked toward the 2012 Presidential contest 32% supported Gingrich, 25% for Romney, and only 21 favored Palin. That's just further indication that Fiorina's big victory had very little to do with passionate Palin supporters jumping on her train.
Did Palin's endorsement have some minimal positive impact for the candidates she supported? Probably. Does it suggest big momentum for 2012? Not at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Continue to minimize her impact, Dems. Just as you have done time and time again. At your own peril.
Tom, here from a Republican! We like Palin's candidates because she chooses quite well and gives that candidate a conservative stamp and often that the other is not really too conservative, but it doesn't mean that I want her to be the Republican standard bearer in '12 b/c of many obvious reasons. But in the party we like her influence and like her choices. She does have the power! Just b/c we don't want her as the nominee doesn't say about this.
Just keep lying to yourselves. It'll be that much sweeter when she crushes her primary opponents and kicks Obama's butt.
Polls about Palin and the Presidency mean nothing at this point. You're comparing apples to oranges. Some people who want her to run for President vote against her endorsements and vice versa. Seems to me that Presidency polls are a poor measure of impact.
All great points, with the possible exception of California, where a lot of people who may have otherwise gone for Devore felt comfortable jumping on the Carly bandwagon, which possibly pushed her over the 50% mark
These polls are amazing. So many people are negative on Palin simply because the majority of the people out there watch the network tv talking heads... out of the 100 million or so who actually vote for President... how many read this blog or any of the other blogs? even FOX News has only 8 or 9 million per day even if they are beating all the other cable networks combined, so you are talking about less than 10%. So, the liberal biased talking heads who are all negative on Palin all the time - and this is a fact - are reaching 30 million or 30%... that is where the "she is stupid", "she is unqualified", "she is a quitter" narrative is being preached. I would say this... let us see what the numbers are in 2011... after she actually says she is running and acts that way.
Please...Sarah had more to do with those primary wins than any other candidate out there. She propelled Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina and Susana Martinez from the bottom of the totem poll to the top...as a matter of fact...over the top. Why is it if she is so "insignificant" that her endorsements are so widely sought? The answer: They are golden. End of story.
Palin's endorsements show her intelligence... lining up key support in key states
"Though the media have painted Palin as a ditz, no politician in memory has conducted a more brilliant pre-presidential campaign...
The endorsement of Branstad suggests Palin, a politician of principle, has a pragmatic streak. She acts not only out of instinct but cold calculation. How else to explain the Branstad endorsement over a social conservative than a decision to befriend a future GOP governor in the first battleground state of 2012?
Other interventions this cycle reveal Palin to be far more savvy than the caricature drawn by the left.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a colleague of Palin's in the GOP Governor's Association, was facing an uphill battle against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who had the backing of Dick Cheney ...
Perry won in a walk. Palin 1, Cheney 0.
Perry will lead the second-largest bloc of delegates to the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla. The largest will come from California, where Carly Fiorina -- another one of Palin's mama grizzlies -- won the GOP Senate nod on Tuesday. Palin had endorsed her over the more conservative Chuck DeVore.
In Kentucky, where the establishment backed Mitch McConnell's handpicked successor to Sen. Jim Bunning, Trey Grayson, and Cheney went in for Grayson, Palin endorsed Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who has a loyal libertarian following.
With Palin and Tea Party backing, Rand won. The Pauls, too, owe a debt to Sarah. Palin 2, Cheney 0."
(Pat Buchanan)
Palin is intelligent enough to pick winners. She does not endorse the furthest right candidate, but endorses candidates that can win... and can return the favor.
Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina on May 6.
On May 24 SurveyUSA reports:
"In the Republican primary for US Senator, support for former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is up sharply in the past 2 weeks, from 24% on 05/10/10 to 46% today 05/24/10. Fiorina's support has more than doubled among women, seniors, Hispanics, the less educated, and in the Inland Empire."
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=203d9267-8869-45c0-b3de-95ed057a54f9
You think maybe Sarah Palin had an effect after all?
Post a Comment