Republican Presidential Candidates

Post by **halplm** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:04 pm

hopefully you're right, they're certainly trying to get over there...

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:17 pm

Yes, everyone but the president and his staff and the congressional leadership and the DNC and the DSCC and a big chunk of the Senate. Without their brave resistance, our socialist overlords would have been in place since February.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:27 pm

The big Sarah Palin books comes out next month and it is already being remaindered at 69% off the cover price.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-Ameri ... 656&sr=8-1

Such an advance discount is unheard of in the publishing industry where even the best retailers who sell the most books do not get them for that much of a discount.

Does anybody know the story behind this?

Post by **Padme** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:30 pm

They are trying to make it more afforable?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:03 pm

They want to make a splash, is my guess—X hundred thousand copies preordered. Pricing it the same as a romance paperback will help.

Political books often seem to do this, or alternatively organizations that agree with them order thousands of copies and give them away as donation premiums. Both tactics can really increase sales (whether they increase readership is another matter).

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:07 pm

I was able to find something on the net which indicated that the $9.00 Amazon price is a reaction to the announced $10.00 price that Wal Mart had been publicizing. So this is something of a price war with both major sellers being willing to sell the books at a loss just to deny business to a competitor. What do the major sellers pay for the books? That is not publicized but it is believed that the greatest discount any seller gets is between 55 and 60 off cover price so that they can sell it for 40% off.

Post by **Lidless** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:31 pm

Sarah Palin used to face the same thing Ronald Reagan had to overcome - affable, but an intellectual lightweight. Luckily, now that even the Republicans deem she is unelectable and more in it for fame and money per the recent study, we can cross her off.

Thank goodness.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:02 pm

Not likely... but I'm sure that's what the authors of that report want.

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Lidless wrote:Sarah Palin used to face the same thing Ronald Reagan had to overcome - affable, but an intellectual lightweight. Luckily, now that even the Republicans deem she is unelectable and more in it for fame and money per the recent study, we can cross her off.

Thank goodness.

A hard-core of Republican voters are still convinced that she's the right choice for 2012, but the odds are stacked against her. She was on a losing Presidential ticket, which is a huge setback to a political career. Furthermore, given the way opinion polls turned after she was picked and how much criticism she took during the campaign it seems certain that she was a drag on the ticket rather than a help to it. Plus she left her governorship mid-term for no apparent reason, and is showing no sign of taking any other political office.

By the time that Reagan was elected President, he had been re-elected as Governor of a large, mixed state (California) three times, been governor for fourteen years without crashing and burning, and had a record of good performance in speeches and debates. Palin has nothing on him.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:29 pm

Who said she did? And I don't know of of anyone who thinks Palin is the right choice for 2012 (although I imagine there are quite a few). Most of her fans would be willing to wait until 2016 if the political climate would be more favorable. If she runs and loses in 2012 she's totally done.

She was not a drag on the ticket of McCain, she boosted him from being a total and complete failure to at least making it respectable. Only her enemies would say she was a drag on the ticket (and yes, that's many republicans).

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:33 am

From aggregated polls:

Note the sharp divergence in September. Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate on August 29, when the opinion polls were neck and neck. Within two weeks Obama had taken a substantial lead that he never lost.

Palin’s approval numbers for September 2008, approva/disapprove/no opinion/change:

Code: Select all

9/11:    52       35        13     +17
9/12:    51       37        12     +14
9/13:    49       40        11     +9
9/14:    47       42        11     +5
9/15:    47       43        10     +4
9/16:    45       44        11     +1
9/17:    44       45        11     -1
9/18:    42       46        11     -4

Palin attracted a lot of negative attention in the 2008 campaign, and no Presidential ticket benefits from discussion of its VP candidate’s gaffes and fitness to hold office, nor from calls from her own side to resign or be dumped from the ticket. Palin was a boost for about 15% of the voting population, but a non-issue or outright drag for the rest.

This chart from 538 tells that story.

Post by **Lidless** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:47 am

My lesser-known favourites...

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."
Sarah Palin on the vice president's constitutional role after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008

"I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you."
Sarah Palin, after being asked if she had never met a foreign head of state, despite the fact that every vice president in the last 32 years had met a foreign head of state prior to taking office, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008. This was hastily rectified two weeks later with a photo-op at the UN.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Sarah Pailn, on the Iraq war

Every one of those scares the hell out of me.

Post by **halplm** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 am

Well, they don't scare me, and in fact the third is exactly what I would like to hear from our leaders.

LM, what else was going on in that time frame? Was there massive attacks against her by the press? Was McCain being an idiot?

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:23 am

Um...Hal, you want our leaders to believe that they are on a "mission from God?" That when they wage war, it is, in fact, decreed by God? A holy war, if you will?

Like a jihad?

Post by **BrianIsSmilingAtYou** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:41 pm

halplm wrote:She was not a drag on the ticket of McCain, she boosted him from being a total and complete failure to at least making it respectable. Only her enemies would say she was a drag on the ticket (and yes, that's many republicans).

I totally put McCain out of consideration once he selected Palin (and once I knew of enough about her to scare the bejesus out of me). I know numerous other folks who were similarly persuaded, and there is substantial statistical evidence, such as that provided above by the estimable Lord M., to support this contention.

She was not only a drag on McCain, she killed his campaign, after a brief irrational spasm, which was merely the death throes. After that, all that was left was a zombie campaign with the mere appearance of life.

BrianIs

AtYou

Post by **Ellienor** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:57 pm

I personally know a number of registered Republicans, voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, who didn't vote for McCain and that reason was Palin.

Independents are key to a presidential election, and independents did not like Sarah Palin.

Was it Lincoln who said, I hope we are on the side of God? That strikes me as a much more humble approach, one that is consistent with recognition of humans as imperfect.

Post by **Maria** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:00 pm

hal wrote:She was not a drag on the ticket of McCain, she boosted him from being a total and complete failure to at least making it respectable.

I would have voted for McCain if he'd picked someone sensible for a running mate. I really wanted to. But picking Palin ruined it for me and a lot of other moderates.

Post by **Erunáme** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:00 pm

halplm wrote:Well, they don't scare me, and in fact the third is exactly what I would like to hear from our leaders.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong times infinity for any politician to inject religion into national concerns. Americans all condem Islamic holy wars or religious leaders setting policy, but somehow it's okay if it's a Christian?

Was there massive attacks against her by the press?

Yes because she was incredibly inappropriate person to be a VP candidate.

Was McCain being an idiot?

Picking her sure wasn't a smart move.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:08 pm

Apparently McCain originally wanted Joe Lieberman on the ticket.

Now THAT would have made for a very interesting race, indeed.

Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:17 pm

BrianIsSmilingAtYou wrote:She was not only a drag on McCain, she killed his campaign

I disagree with this. I think that McCain killed his own campaign with his "I'm suspending my campaign two days after saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong" response to the economic crisis. I think the American people saw him as someone they were not willing to trust after that.

But this is all just rehashing old ground.