http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/more_voters_agree_with_palin_t.html

September 21, 2010
More voters agree with Palin than Obama
Ethel C. Fenig

So Sarah Palin may have her passionate devotees but her far out ideas and lack of experience render her unelectable as president huh? Hmmm, well according to the very reliable Rasmussen Report

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin's than they are to President Obama's, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president's than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

Sure there are qualifiers, ifs and buts; sure agreeing with a candidate doesn't necessarily translate into voting for a candidate. However

Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of Palin. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her favorably, while 49% hold an unfavorable opinion of her. This includes 21% with a Very Favorable view and 31% with a Very Unfavorable one. This marks little change from last November when Palin was on a national tour to promote her book, "Going Rogue."

However, 76% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliated voters now hold a favorable opinion of Palin.

Once upon a short time ago Barack Obama was considered unelectable because of his lack of experience, his uninspiring legislative record and his hazy background. But...poof! he was elected.

If a crook like Obama can be elected, then ANYBODY can be elected!!

If someone like Palin can debate with OBAma and not sound like a complete buffoon,, I will make arrangements to leave the country myself,,,lol

there is no comparison here,, she is pretty, she puts on a tough act, but she is CLUELESS about far too many things that a President should be informed of,,,

I agree that she should come on camera in a bikini.....

where is his ENRON scam that actually cost others their money?

could it be a double standard wheresome who become successful and happen to have associations during that journey with SOMEONE we disapprove of are crooks,,,while others are just successful politicians,,,

If she could even get through a real interview without looking stupid, I'd be surprised.

exactly my point, after quitting her post, I dont know if she is even as in tune with politics now as she was then,, when she was pretty off key,,,lol

Considering polls can be rigged to say what you want them to.

I would have to say with that in consideration that a good thirty percent of American are dingbats like she is. The only thing she has going for her is that she is nice to look at for the men other than that she can't work her way out of a paper bag.

if she looked like Roseanne Barr, barely anyone would give her campaign serious consideration

True.

Take away H's tel-u-wut-to-say-prompter, he couldn't out-debate a 5th grader.

And, Palin not bein' a fatasss like, uh, let's say Rosanne, makes her a pleasure to eyeball!

I have seen him speak without the teleprompter and answer questions without one,, he is much more well spoken and constitutionally knowledgable. He can outdebate the best of them.

I'd have to agree with Charlie Murphy when he said of Palin: "High Functioning Retard" (yes I know retard is not PC... who ever said I conformed to such lunacy, let alone Mr. Murphy)

Now Ron Paul on the other hand, with his concise knowledge of economics, health care being a OB/GYN, foriegn policy and of course, the Constitution, would spank Mr. Soetoro, I mean Obama, quite furiously, figuratively speaking, in any debate.

paul and obama would be a much less comical debate, I would definitely tune in for that


id say someone like paul with decades of political experience and the fortitude and intelligence to complete a medical degree and work as a flight surgeon,, has more than the intelligence to match OBamas


moreso than a sportscaster, who took six years at six different schools to complete her broadcasting degree, and who isnt sure what the post she accepted to run for is supposed to do,,,(that was a scary quote)

In 2008, during campaigns, was it MSNBC or CNN who refused a televised debate between Paul and Hussein?

Ratsmussen is not a reliable source for polling...they lean way right. Last year about this time 71% did not think Palin was qualified to be president.

"Fifty-six percent of Americans thinks Sarah Palin cares about people like them, something which many Republican presidential candidates have not shared, but 71 percent don't think she's qualified to sit in the Oval Office, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted Oct. 16-18." (2009)

http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/poll-watch/

These lame polls the RW nutbaggery use are only used to create the illusion...not to convey the reality. Palin is a miserable failure...as the Dippic's Mini-me...but don't let that get in the way in 2012 Baggers...bring her on again, we need a laugh and another victory against the same people that took us down the wrong road before. Who in their right mind would vote for that moron...well except for GOPers..ooof, will they ever learn?

Want the Dippic back? Vote for Palin!

ANYONE that woulda ran against bush would have got elected....

but MCCain ran against him too so,,,

Again, had Paul been allowed to debate Hussein on national TV, we might have seen Dr Paul as president.

The puppet-masters couldn't allow that.