Here are the conclusions that Democrat Party pollster Public Policy Polling arrived at in its most recent national poll of likely GOP primary voters:
The talk of a brokered convention never seems to die down and one interesting finding on this poll was that Sarah Palin is far more popular than any of the actual Republican candidates in the race. Her net favorability is +48, with 68% of voters rating her favorably to only 20% with a negative opinion. That compares favorably to +29 for Santorum, +19 for Romney, and -26 for Paul.
Palin is someone GOP delegates might be able to unify around in the case of a hopelessly deadlocked convention. She is seen positively by Gingrich voters (85/7), Santorum supporters (80/10), and Romney ones (57/27) alike. That’s a contrast to Romney who is disliked by both Santorum (38/48) and Gingrich (32/54) voters and Santorum who is disliked by Romney (38/48) voters and only seen narrowly favorably by Gingrich (46/42) backers.
Here are the crosstabs. One thing that stands out to me in this poll is just how well Governor Palin performs among non-evangelicals. The reason why Romney is beating Santorum/Newt is that Santorum and Newt haven’t shown much appeal outside of the South among non-evangelical conservatives. That’s reflected in this national poll as well as Newt and Santorum have net favorable ratings of -11 and +3, respectively, among non-evangelicals while Romney has a net favorable rating of +33. Governor Palin’s net favorable rating among non-evangelicals of +30 is almost the same as Romney’s net favorable rating among non-evangelicals.
The key to beating candidates like Romney is to run up a big lead among evangelicals and hold down his lead among non-evangelicals. It’s pretty clear from this poll that Palin would be doing a much better job than Santorum is in holding down Romney’s lead among non-evangelicals and she’d run the same as, if not better than, Santorum among evangelicals.
In a brokered convention, who would you vote for?
Results up to now.
Governor Chris Christie 1.72% (19 votes)
Senator Marco Rubio 8.14% (90 votes)
Governor Sarah Palin 64.62% (714 votes)
Congressman Allen West 9.32% (103 votes)
Governor Mitt Romney 7.06% (78 votes)
Newt Gingrich 6.97% (77 votes)
Rick Santorum 2.17% (24 votes)
@ yamit82:
Still grinding that favorite ax of yours, I see.
“Authentic” as defined by which Jews?
It’s apparent that God is not your authority, but rather the writer of these words is — words which you always pull out on occasions like this. (And who could that writer be?)
Then too, I thought you said [Thread #28] that “Judaism is not a religion. ”
One needn’t identify with the “ultra-orthodox” to know the Aqeda is a fact.
That’s not WHY your comments (in the present context) are not germane.
What makes them non-germane is that the thread’s point-of-departure was Arnold’s attempt [#25] to contrast religion playing a virtually theocratic role in Israel with its purportedly ‘not’ playing one in America.
My response to Arnold was that the distinction is simply not valid [re-read the posting sequence, Yamit], because insofar as the religious sensibility — whether unconscious or formalistic — is closely engaged in the Public Square in the ONE society, it is comparably so in the OTHER, although neither is a theocracy (or an ecclesiocracy).
You & I may dispute all the livelong day over the reasons why it is so engaged in ISRAEL specifically (and there may well be more to be said about that) — but it is not relevant to the matter under discussion.
(BTW, thousands of self-identified Jews came to Mandate Palestine direct from the Displaced Persons camps at the end of WWII; nobody subjected them to a “Kosher Inquisition” at the moment of (or EVER subsequent to) Israel’s Declaration of Independent Statehood.)
comment to dweller blocked. Reminds me of the Texas two step or debka one comment gets through 2 don’t?
@ dweller:
,
My comments were germain in that It is our religion that is the determinant source of who and what is a Jew ergo: “if a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and his own actions accordingly must conform to and reflect the definitions and or conditions in those sources. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism”.
I am afraid you have an an incorrect opinion as to who is a Jew, what is a secular Jew in our context vs. yours. Ben Gurion (Aryeh Ben-Gurion)
who had the honor of holding a corner of my wedding Chupa, exemplifies your secular Jews Read:On a knife-edge
“Al tishlakh yadkha el hanaar: Shirim vedivrei hagut al haakeda” (Lay not thine hand upon the lad: Poetry and essays on the binding of Isaac.) Compiled and edited by Aryeh Ben-Gurion.
@ yamit82:
All very interesting, Yamit, but not germane to the point I was disputing [above] with Arnold; viz., his atttempt to contrast the “mixing of religion & politics” in Israel with the purported Stateside ‘discomfort’ at the proposition.
@ dweller:
Judaism is not a religion. I see no conflict of being Jewish living in Israel with less observance. I think most so called religious Jews in the diaspora as those who are less religious, because however frum, they are denying the major commandments.
Read: The Religious Jew
Except for a small minority mostly secular Jews here in Israel are more of what I call less observant Jews not a-religious.
Over 80-90% of Israeli Jews observe the Brit Mila (circumcision), put mezzot on their doors, (homes businesses and offices), Marry according to din Moshe, are buried with Jewish funerals in consecrated Jewish cemeteries,celebrate most Jewish holidays especially Pesach, purim and Chanuka and are found in synagogues on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (Most Israelis fast on Yom Kippur). Most do no physical labor on Shabbat and all commercial businesses and all public services and government offices are closed on Shabbat. Study of Tanach is still required in all schools. The Army gives all new recruits when they inducted into the Army a rifle in one hand and a Tanach in the other and it is part of every soldiers basic and permanent kit ( this has always been a symbolic tradition from the beginning of the IDF).
Most Israels think and speak Hebrew as their first language.Touring the country on foot is still a popular pastime with Israelis of all ages and we learn our history and geography in such a manner as well as fauna and wildlife.
I think that even today we Jews in Israel live a more Jewish life today than at any time in our history. The rabbis in order to preserve a Judaism without the Temple in the exile made Judaism into a religion. But was Judaism meant to be a religion divorced from the land it’s customs,traditions and fulfilling the commandments that relate to the Land and the Temple?
Even our most anti religious Jews from the atheist Kibbutzim were better educated in Jewish history and traditions that most religious Jews in the exile. Yet in their own way performed G-d’s holy work in building and defending the nation. Curious that today many Kibbutzim have built synagogues and are returning to a more traditional Jewish outlook and practice.
Today there is more Torah study going on in Israel than at any time in our history. Every Israeli knows of someone who has returned to traditional Jewish observance.
“Ephraim, he mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is become a cake not turned. Strangers have devoured his strength and he knoweth it not.” (Hosea 7)
@ ArnoldHarris:
Religion may well play a major role in Israeli politics — but not because Israel “was organized specifically as the Jewish state.” Israel was not organized as the state of the Jewish religion, but rather of the Jewish people, many of whom are frankly quite secular. Remember that most of Israel’s founding generation (on both sides of the political divide) were largely “a-religious,” and a substantial majority were out-&-out socialists of an unabashedly atheistic stripe.
That’s really never been true in the US; you’re listening to leftist hype.
You’re also confusing religion with church. They certainly may overlap but they don’t have to. There’s a world of difference betw separation of Church & State (viz., one organization and another one) — and separation of religious faith from the Public Square.
The first separation phenomenon is quite American; the second is anything but.
Ever since de Tocqueville’s landmark studies of the American people & ethos, beginning as early as 1830, religious faith (formal or implicit) has been seen to play a major role in the ongoing US experiment in self-govt. It’s bred in the bone, sir.
Yes, yes, you said that before — however, neither now nor then do/did you say who it was that conducted the poll, nor who sponsored it, nor what the sampling field consisted of, etc. Remember, Arnold, the vast majority of polls these days (even Election Day exit polls) tend — for better or for worse — to be conducted not for the purpose of ascertaining opinion so much as for the purpose of CREATING it. . . .
It’s true that Santorum does have a heavy spending record, and you’re correct that this doesn’t help him in the present climate. In mid-Atlantic states like PA that have lost much of their formerly muscular industrial base and have been hurting for some decades now, that spending would’ve been hardly surprising.
The VP slot is never offerred for ‘condolence.’ Sometimes it’s offerred to bring back together the differing, feuding wings of the Party (as when Reagan took Bush the Elder as running mate). Or it might be offerred to consolidate a targeted constituency or section of the country. Never for ‘condolence.’
There aren’t that many “centrist Republicans,” Arnold; that’s why they — and PresentCompany — “want to see him gone.”
@ dweller:
She end up with half a million dollar in red because of all the law suits she had to defend. According to the Constitution of Alaska the State doesn’t pay legal fees for public servants. That was before her first book. BTW I strongly reccomend that book for all who really want to know her, and the documentary made from it, “The Undefeated”. Giving up the governorship was the price she had to pay for cleaning out the corruption from inside the Alaska branch of the GOP.
Dweller,
I saw the same information later in the day. The earlier information was this morning’s headline on Drudge Report, which is one of the first things I look at each day.
Irrespective of anything Santorum has to say on the topic, I am quite certain he will not now, or ever, be nominated by the Republican Party for the office of president of the United States. Religion is expected to play a major role in the politics of Israel, which was organized specifically as the Jewish state. But here in the USA, people — most of whom are Christians of one kind or another — grow uncomfortable about too much mixing of religion and politics. I discovered, when examining details of some of the exit polls in recent state Republican primary elections that women in general — including Catholic women — were turning voting massively against Santorum, on grounds that they are not interested in the government playing any role in dictating to them about use of contraceptives, or for that matter, abortion rights.
In addition to that, Romney’s campaign are broadcasting almost continuous attack ads against Santorum, based on his actual voting record in the US Senate, in which we supported one major budget-busting wasteful expense after another. Which is almosst the opposite of what Republicans and even most centrist voters want these days.
I am sure the Republican Party leadership and a lot of other notables will move steadily and possibly rapidly now to back Romney. Nor will Santorum be offered any vice presidential condolence prize at the Republican national convention in Tampa, Florida this summer. Most centrist Republicans want to see him gone and so do I.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ ArnoldHarris:
Rick Santorum promptly clarified & corrected the misstatement on Mark Levin’s nationally syndicated, live radio talk show. What’s more, when asked directly & point-blank by Levin whether he would support Romney should the latter become the GOP nominee, Santorum answered with a firm, unclutterred “YES.” He also indicated a willingness to campaign for him (or whoever the nominee would be), if asked to do so.
@ Alan Lasnover:
She gave up the Alaska governorship because she sensed — accurately — that the time was ripe for her to move to the national stage; her timing was, and is, exquisite. The notion that she was out to make big bucks completely misses the point.
The Demo Party’s driveby media cheering section had driven itself crazy trying (unsuccessfully) to dig up serious dirt on her — there were 35 different national, journalistic forays underway at one time in Wasilla — and DNC operatives (also some Alaska GOP establishment ones) had arranged for a multitude of frivolous lawsuits to be filed against her; so she was deep in legal debt (court filings, attorneys’ fees, etc).
She wrote the book, and went on tour, partly to get out of debt. And partly, as I noted, to project her aspirations beyond the regional arena. If I were a betting man (I’m not, but if I were), I’d say she will become the next US Senator from the great state of Arizona — where she & Todd bought a nice, comfortable house [Scottsdale] almost a year ago, just two months after current AZ senator Jon Kyl [GOP minority whip] announced that he would not be seeking a 4th term when his present one expires. . . .
@ Alan Lasnover:
I can only say that you know nothing about her and her accomplishments. You just repeated the usual MSM mantra on a sunny day when there are no clouds to be blaimed on her.
@ bahmi:
This is a typical irrational comment from an anti Palinite.
Forget her smile.
Listen to her words.
Examine her past accomplishments and successes.
This is the stuff that the USA desperately needs for president.
And then ….
Watch Obama smile and smile and smile.
Listen to his oft repeated meaningless mouthings.
Look at his almost total lack of both past and present accomplishments and his massive failures.
This is the stuff that the USA desperately needs for a past president.
BO,
Obama is a natural born ditherer, in foreign as well as domestic policy. If Israel whacks the Iranian nuclear sites before the election — which they may well be compelled to do, depending on what their high-grade intelligence tells them about Iranian progress in converting uranium to weapons grade materials — then Obama and his administration will be caught up in a conundrum that few governments handle easily. Back Israel? Bark at Israel? Do nothing at all? Look at this administrations responses to events since early last year in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan. Indecision run riot. Netanyahu and Israel’s military leadership resemble Lincolns and Eisenhowers in comparison.
The price of gasoline in November, along with a steadily creeping inflation in food prices, non-recovery in the losses of employment across most of the country and related economic issues will sink or float any incumbent president looking for another four years in the captain’s chair. I don’t think I have to remind you of what happens to crude oil or gasoline prices if the Iranian response to Israeli attack starts going after the oil fields.
My strong hunch is that if any of this happens, Obama will begin resembling none other than James Earl Carter in the face of the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Ayutollist political takeover, the sacking of the American embassy in Teheran, the “misery index” of unemployment and inflation, and all the rest of that most inglorious of American presidential terms.
As for the Republican candidates, Drudge Report this morning displayed the headline that Santorum thinks it would be better for the USA to re-elect Obama than to elect Romney. Which tells me that Santorum’s campaign is collapsing.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
This election season is very dull, on all sides. I don’t know of any CANDIDATE (not dark horse, like Palin) who generates any real enthusiasm — with the exception of Ron Paul, who has been marginalized by the press. If everything moves on an even keel between now and November, we can expect a Romney nomination and an Obama victory.
If Israel attacks Iran before the election, things would likely change a little — VERY little. Obama’s an as–ole; but he’s an s-hole we know. Americans don’t really KNOW Mitt Romney very well. If a world war would break out, Obama would probably gain support. Even if he blundered badly, which is likely, it would probably be a net gain for him. If Israel is able to significantly humiliate Iran in an air strike, though, and Obama is seen as playing a bad game of catch-up with events, he might lose the election.
Brokered convention? It’s possible, but I fail to see how it will help the Republican Party’s prospects in November. We vote VERY late in the game in my state, after the nomination is usually secured one way or another. I plan to vote for Non-Romney in the primary, and to vote for Romney in November. The best hope Conservatives have, I think, is to win back the Senate. That should at least put some balance into the game.
It’s become clear that it’s the Republican establishment that’s facing a “very limited future in Republican politics.”
There’s no comparison whatsoever between the state of the GOP establishment that Buchanan faced, and the condition of the one Santorum faces today.
Today’s GOP establishment is looking down the business end of a hostile takeover by the Tea Party — which may very possibly become the new Republican Party core in not-too-long a time.
And the Old Guard — Country Club stalwarts that they are — are scared shitless at the prospect.
In fact, my dollar-to-your-donut says they are more frightened of losing their position & prestige within a revitalized, conservatively-grounded party — which is what it would mean if a conservative becomes president this time out — than they are of losing the presidential election altogether this time out.
THAT’s why they’re supporting Romney — who is the ONLY one of all the GOP candidates who has absolutely NO hope whatsoever of being able to marshal the most powerful weapon in the entire Republican arsenal in this year’s general campaign:
Obamacare.
I can just hear the Anointed One on the stump even now:
“I got the idea from you, Mitt. Thank you, thank you, thank you so very much for the inspiration! That photo of you & Ted Kennedy on the Romneycare Bill signing day in MA just SO warmed the cockles of my heart. Thank you, thank you, thank you.”
Game. Set. Match.
In what parallel universe would that take place?
Think about it, Arnold:
Romney has a more firmly conservative position on illegal aliens than Gingrich — and far more conservative than the GOP establishment: they want the cheap labor that illegals represent. Do you really think they’d be supporting Romney if they truly believed he would beat Obama, knowing it would mean a firm hand on illegals as a matter of Executive Branch policy? Think it through.
Sorry, Arnold, but calling it a ‘fact’ won’t make it a fact.
This has long been a center-right country.
It loses its bearings from time-to-time, but not for long. Center-right it is. And center-right it will remain.
The truth is that attractive women DO tend to be kinda dumb. [There. I said it.]
But that’s not because God has a problem with putting brains & looks together.
When a woman is beautiful, the world often throws itself at her feet, as it were, in certain ways.
With that kind of attention & favoritism, she has little incentive to question herself.
But if you don’t question yourself, you don’t grow.
So, easy-on-the-eyes has a way of amounting to shallow-&-dull.
No reason it should have to, though.
Not for a left-winger woman C-I-C. Not ever, ken yehi rotzohn.
For a conservative woman Chief, however — oh, yes; it’s ready — bank on it.
Only by those who take the driveby media seriously.
(Though the media THEMSELVES don’t think of her as a ‘lightweight’ & an ‘airhead.’
Indeed the media would dearly LOVE to be able to think of her that way
— because she scares the living pee-pee outa them.
And that’s as it should be.)
Ah, I can see that my suspicions were correct: You don’t get out much, do you?
ROFLMAO!
She’d eat his breakfast.
She’d eat him for breakfast
— chew him up in canapés
pick her teeth with the splintered bones & spit up a hairball twenty minutes later.
She didn’t “back down” from anything. There was never anything to “back down” from.
The Oval Office has simply NEVER been on her wish list — not since she became the mother of a special-needs child.
— THAT’s what was responsible for her decision to not even consider the option.
If that’s what you really believe about her, Yamit
— then she’s smarter than you are.
WAY smarter.
Come on, people. American voters may vote for Palin because she is a “hockey mom” or because she is good-looking and has big breasts, but a President requires much more. Palin gave up the governorship of Alaska to promote her book and make big bucks and has no more grasp of what it takes than Rick Perry, Herman Cain or Michelle Bachman. One can vote for Santorum if one believes that God will make his decisions for him, but Gingrich, despite his baggage, is the only candidate with the ability to beat the incumbent, both in debate and at the polls and return this country to fiscal solvency and a rational foreign policy. Don’t give up on him just yet!
The US Republican Party presidential nomination process, after the Illinois blow-away of Senator Santorum and the others, is rapidly firming up in support of Governor Mitt Romney. Some of the insiders already are warning Santorum that he cannot now win the requisite number of delegates, and that if he hangs around in the campaign until the summer national convention in Florida, for purposes of raising a Tea Party stink on the floor against Romney, that he will have a very limited future in Republican politics; which is a polite way of telling him he will get the same treatment that Pat Buchanan got after he presidential nomination effort in a campaign a number elections back, and in which he created public problems that raised establishment Republican hackles.
The fact is, most voters in this country are centrists. Romney is a leading fiscal conservative. He doesn’t spend much effort trying to pretend he is a social conservative as well. And I think that’s just what most people in this country want, namely, a good manager who can start reducing the over-bloated US national debt. Failure to do that means the USA would otherwise wind up as little more than a large Western hemisphere version of Greece, Portugal, Italy or some of the other shiftless societies that are ruining the Eurozone despite the thrifty and productive Germans and other northern Europeans. In any case, I think Romney will in fact be the nominee and that he is the only Republican candidate who can defeat President Barack Hussein Obama Jr in the general election in November 2012.
What does all this portend for Israel? Maybe much; but maybe nothing. On the other hand, having Obama in the White House for four years would be the equivalent of having the execrable James Earl Carter in the White House for just four years. All things considered, American friends of Israel — Jewish, Evangelical, whatever — ought to line up in support of Romney, because Obama so far has spelled nothing but trouble for the Jewish nation and the State of Israel.
As for Sarah Palin, she probably has more influence in Republican politics by not being a candidate, in comparison with the struggles she would face trying to become a sort of replacement for Michelle Bachmann, who took herself a little too seriously as a Tea Party leader.
If the Republicans win the presidency, and control of both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, the main mover and shaker will be Congressman Ryan, who will be reshaping the national budget; which means paring down some of the vast entitlement programs such as Medicaid, which is largely unfunded.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ yamit82:
That’s a good point. I didn’t vote for him for a first term. However, I don’t think having someone like Reagan for a second term was a mistake. Imagine Walter Mondale? and John Kerry in 2004?
@ David Chase:
Any one of my cats and dog would make a better Pres than the current occupant.
Yamit’s law: As an American,I never vote for any president for a second term, and here I am speaking as an Israeli.
David, I can think of reasons for the possibility; what if the super delegates don’t decide the first vote, even with the pledged delegates, after all? What if all the delegates don’t make it to the convention for whatever reason? Then the pledged are freed from the pledge and vote however they chose, and the brokered becomes contested? Granted hasn’t happened since 1924 and 1948, but in 1924 they voted a dark horse. Am I stretching here? Maybe not. After all in American presidential elections anything can happen overnight, up to the last minute.
@ BROOM:
@ BROOM:
One more comment- Just because a candidate can’t muster up the votes doesn’t mean they wouldn’t make a good President. Having a firm grasp of the obvious and saying she can’t win, doesn’t mean she either isn’t intelligent or, when the time is different, make a strong candidate. If she were in a race she would then be heard over the stereotyping and politically biased media coverage that she gets. Reagan didn’t get the nomination in 1976 and everybody thought he was just an actor- an actor who effectively won the Cold War.
No.
Winners quit while they’re ahead.
She was smart enough to string all her groupies along for fame and profit though.
@ BROOM:
Palin won’t get the nominaton because she’s not in it but it takes an intelligent person to understand an intelligent person. Just because Romney will probably, at least at this time, get the nomination doesn’t mean he’s better or more intelligent. Palin’s certainly intelligent enough such that she realizes that the public is probably not going to go for her yet and rather than risk losing to Obama in a premature run she “responsibly” backed down for the good of the campaign “against” Obama. That’s vision also.
Please, Ted, stop talking about Sarah Palin. She is thought of as a mental lightweight and blabbering airhead here in the US. I don’t know a single person who would vote for her as president. She would have virtually no chance of beating Obama in a general election. Whatever polls you’re referencing are totally wrong. If getting Obama out of there is your wish, stop the fantasy about Palin. It’s going to be Romney, hopefully with Marco Rubio as running mate, against Obama. Put your effort into supporting them, not a loser like Palin.
@ monostor:
Since Palin hasn’t been in the race I have liked Gingrich the most. They both have vision. He is very smart and not afraid to say unpopular but truthful things. I’m only sorry that even though Sarah Palin didn’t get a shot this time that Gingrich didn’t do better- at least not yet. I think Gingrich would have faired much better against Obama in debates and that is something I really would have liked to see. This time around Obama’s salience would have been put to the carpet. I only hope that whoever does finally get the nomination can effectively do that.
@ David Chase:
That’s exactly it. People go for looks, for the so-called electability and not really for the candidate’s vision. Sarah Palin has it, Gingrich has it. Sarah Palin looks very good but she is a woman and I don’t think that the country is ready for a woman Commander-in-Chief. Not yet anyway.
As for Gingrich, it’s a shame that people do not grasp his message. It’s the most consistent in its conservatism, in its determination to bring the country back on the track that the Founders envisaged.
@ bahmi:
One other thought- was John Kennedy a loser also who only got in because of his looks and I also wonder if intelligent things came out of a physically less appealing candidate would they be heard?
@ bahmi:
I think it is form of discriminatory stereotyping to presume that if someone is attractive, especially a women, that somehow she can’t be bright and capable. I would just like to know how the women’s movement would answer that question. If she ran or won would they say she only got the nod because of her feminine wile’s. I would think that if a male chauvanist said something like that that they would blast him- or would they? in this case.
You’d like to be able to believe that, wouldn’t you?
(Nice to see you shaking in your boots; it becomes you.)
The truth is that she’s very much a winner, and capable as all-get-out.
But it’s precisely because her sense of responsibility is paramount that she DOESN’T seek the presidency.
If someone smiles at you, you think you are in love. Palin is a loser and don’t mistake her smile for anything. She is incapable but she knows we are so impressionable that we are in love at the mere thought of her. Our lack of deeper embrace before declaration of love is quite striking here.
One can hope, but how would the convention be brokered if Romney has the majority of delegates. What would be the reason for all the primaries if it can be “brokered” otherwise at the convention. I would love to see Sarah Palin get the nomination but IS IT really a possibility this time around?