WTF??!! What the hell is wrong with people?! Survey says...

[lib_wit_it]

Americans View Sarah Palin as more Sincere and Believable after Watching Speech
From:
HCD Research <[e-mail]>
Results: http://mediacurves.com/Politics/SarahPalinonTucson/
...

12% of Dems, 56% of Rs, and 29% of Indies say they would support Sarah Palin if she were to run in the Presidential Election in 2012!!!

Seriously???!!

I took this survey and gave her 0% on everything. (I wonder if they eliminate high and low scores?) Can people not spot an irrational, whiny, selfish, craven grifter even after a 7 minute-long showcase of all her greatest hits? Jeezus, this is depressing!

If nothing else, everything she says is rendered null and void by her constant, blatant hypocrisy and contradiction of her own words within the same freakin' speech! As Bob Cesa put it:

The histrionics are staggering, especially for someone who wants to be taken seriously as a potential candidate for national office...

She's clearly been taking seriously the e-mail Glenn Beck sent to her following the shootings, in which he implied that she's the victim in all of this, and how she ought to hire his personal security firm, because if she's ever taken out, it could mean "the end of the republic." At no other point in her address were Beck's phony-baloney, maudlin dramatics more apparent than when she accused the press of inciting violence against her: "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

So when a public figure says something incendiary on television, it can trigger violence, and, therefore, public figures should be careful about their language. Let that be a warning, Keith Olbermann. No recommendations for "Second Amendment remedies" to our problems. And chill out, Arianna Huffington, with anything resembling the word "reload." Sarah Palin said that words can motivate people to commit violence. So cut the crap.

Except she doesn't believe that. How do we know? She said so in the very same presentation: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

That's a direct contradiction. We can only gather that, in her opinion, words are and are not responsible for inciting violence. Confused? She reminds me of that Tom Hanks Saturday Night Live character from the 80s, Mr. Short Term Memory, who perpetually forgets what he said seconds earlier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-fumbles-and-f_b_808336.html

It has finally become indubitably clear why the RW has been so hell-bent on gutting public education. It takes a hell of a lot of un-education such a large percentage of people to be bamboozled by such a steaming pile of crap posing as an argument...or a presidential candidate. (Btw, I have never before in my long life used the "steaming pile" cliché. This, my friends, is what the harpy hath wrought.)

My agnosticism has become full-blown atheism. If there were a god, whateritis would have entered the shot during that shameless sham of a video, smote her real good, and then given a scathing admonishment and a serious warning to her fellows and supporters ending with New Rules; 1. Thou shalt not be a fucking hypocrite 2. Thou shalt not whiningly liken thy pampered, wealthy self to a persecuted people, no, not even if some of the "lame-stream media" fails to consistently worship and adore thee...

[MrScorpio]

1. The answer is oh so simple

America is chock full complete idiots

We don't need any more proof

[Cali_Democrat]

7. ^^^Bingo

It's actually pretty straightforward.

[DCKit]

10. AND people who believe every poll they see.

I would point everyone back to the Rasmussen polls from the months leading up to the recent election. There was strong opinion that the polls were highly skewed in the months before the elections. Then, to maintain any semblance of credibility, the numbers became more realistic in the weeks and days leading up to the election.

Just my opinion, but it sure seemed to play out exactly that way.

Now, without an actual election to verify these numbers, the pollsters and online polls the MSM runs daily, can claim any damn numbers they please.

They do not report opinion, they create opinion.

[lib_wit_it]

16. Interesting thought. Is there any regulation of polls or verification system?

[DCKit]

18. Is our VOTING verifiable?

As long as the numbers don't make 90% of the populace sit up and take notice, they'll do as they damn well please.

[lib_wit_it]

26. Great point! Landshark's posts here have taught me to distrust particularly the unverifiable

electronic methods. It's all very disheartening.

[True_Blue]

35. It's called the 'Bandwagon Effect'

'Use in politics

The bandwagon effect occurs in voting: some people vote for those candidates or parties who are likely to succeed (or are proclaimed as such by the media), hoping to be on the "winner's side" in the end.<8> The bandwagon effect has been applied to situations involving majority opinion, such as political outcomes, where people alter their opinions to the majority view (McAllister and Studlar 721). Such a shift in opinion can occur because individuals draw inferences from the decisions of others, as in an informational cascade....'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

[DCKit]

40. 100% - set the tone and drag a bunch of idiots along.

Too many want to vote for the winner, just so they can say so.

[salinen]

12. Correct

bona fide nutzos.

[shanti]

28. you nailed it.

:thumbsup:

[lib_wit_it]

30. I hope you're not offended, but every time I see that Red Wings symbol I think of Paul McCartney!

For me, that's a good thing.

http://thejerseychaser.com/2010/paul-mccartney-adds-penguins-sticker-to-famous-red-wings-guitar/

I see he's now added a Penquin's sticker. Although, the article is so full of inaccuracies, I'm not sure I believe it.



Edited to add link and comment on it.

[bluestateguy]

2. I've never heard of this poll

It looks unscientific, and un-reputable.

Please delete it.

[malaise]

6. Ditto n/t

[lib_wit_it]

13. As I said, I took part in this poll. It is, I guess, as legit as any other? They conduct a lot of

political issue polls, a number of which I've participated in.

edit for typos

[Downtown Hound]

3. Those numbers equal

a huge defeat for Sarah in any presidential run. As to what's wrong with the idiots that do support her, well, I long ago gave up on trying to figure out an answer to that question.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Bush once had a +90% approval rating which is a good indicator we are surrounded by imbeciles

More than 9 out of 10 people you see walking down the street is goofy as a shit house rat.

Not very comforting is it?

Don

[WinkyDink]

5. Survey also says: "12% of registered Democrats are secretly Republicans."

[FiveGoodMen]

9. 12% of registered Democrats are WORSE than almost any republicans used to be

Before hate radio and the megachurches turned conservatives into neocons I don't think many republicans would have followed Sarah.

This is a reminder of why DU should focus on democracy and not the Democratic Party.

[charlie]

14. 13% of self-identified Democrats voted for Bush over Gore in Florida

That's a factoid that's usually ignored when piling on Nader or Greens for "throwing" the election.

The party has a stubbornly consistent nincompoop faction that admires Republicans.

[lib_wit_it]

15. Big lolz!

[charlie]

8. 2 percent change across the board

Within the MOE for any poll. She didn't budge anyone.

[lib_wit_it]

21. Yes, but I can't see why the numbers didn't go down significantly. Even by the standards of her

public spewage, this was so blatantly "Me, me, me! Poor, poor, me!" and illogical. Supposedly people are put off by anger (it sure feels like an insult when I get called an angry liberal), but did you see her expression, the one between jaw flapping, when she presses her lips tightly together, sort of an irate smirk? She looks like she would seriously injure anyone who dared disagree with her in that moment.

I personally understand righteous anger, but how can you be righteous when your career is built on divisive, violence-tinged, mean-spirited distortions and lies?

And, again, how does any conscious person miss or excuse the "What I say could never cause any harm, but what you say against me almost certainly will!" BS?

[Cerridwen]

11. No, the survey doesn't say. The survey is spun to say...

In order to create "public perception".

Look at those #s again

12% of Dems, 56% of Rs, and 29% of Indies

That would be 88% Ds say no, 44% Rs say no, and 71%Is say no.

The only block she has on her side are the Rs. Surprise!

Then there's the tag line right under the video which reads:

"Speech does little to increase voter support for potential run in 2012"

Then there's this paragraph; look closely at the numbers:

With the exception of likeability among Democrats, Palin’s attribute ratings increased among all parties after viewing her speech. The most notable increase was her sincerity ratings, which increased from 2.62 to 2.69 among Democrats, from 5.25 to 5.45 among Republicans and from 3.68 to 3.85 among Independents.

Even the damned Rs only gave her a .2 bump.

There is some serious spin in that article.

[lib_wit_it]

17. I have been taking polls for a year or so through a few online services, and have come to be very

suspicious of the poll results (especially political ones) I see due to the nature of some of the ones I've taken. Some seem to me to clearly be what I understand to be push polls, but some are downright perplexing. I posted about one regarding Rachel Maddow, hoping to get some insight into the very peculiar choices given as responses. Check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9414516

[Cerridwen]

25. Well, that was an ugly poll.

I especially "liked" the one where the option was 'too sarcastic' or 'fierce.'

There were several options for fierce, too. A little seed planting in the brain perhaps?

They were sure pushing for someone to click 'fierce.'

I've noticed it's not just the polls themselves which can be twisted; it's frequently the way in which they're reported and broadcast, as well. I've seen the same poll reported with 180degree opposite spins on it.

It's pretty damned hard to trust anything in the media anymore.

[lib_wit_it]

33. Yes, and don't forget the LGBT connection with the word fierce in a positive sense. I really can't

figure out why they used many of the choice options they did in this poll. For instance, why oppose "I am a political junkie" with "I rely on the radio to keep me informed about political news." Or, "It is important for me to receive my news from multiple sources" vs. "I often go to international sources for my news." Just two examples where both could easily be equally true. And I can't tell which one they are pushing for, though I'm sure there is some method to the madness.

I have searched the Media Curves site and found no report of the results of this survey. I am just dying to find out the details, not just the results, but the specific thinking behind the composition. I am curious even aside from the political/Rachel connection--I honestly just can't fathom this survey.

[Cerridwen]

36. I see a lot of marketing and pharmaceutical background in their

staff listing

I'm not sure what that has to do with Rachel specifically, but it's a weird conglomerate.

[saras]

24. Excellent points

The poll itself does little or nothing to support the article's attitude.

[Cerridwen]

27. It's becoming more common to see polls spun rather than straight

reporting of results to allow the reader to decide.

[lib_wit_it]

29. Too many people are too lazy or too uneducated to interpret information for themselves. And, to be

fair, there's a hell of a lot of info out there to interpret. I can't possibly follow everything that's important so I do depend on people like Keith and Rachel to report *and* interpret them to me. But I do not follow them blindly. I think a lot of Fox followers do.

[Cerridwen]

31. True. Information 'overload' can be a problem.

It's like we all have to specialize. I wish that were funnier. It sounded funnier in my head.

Anyway, yeah, we have to be careful who to trust. I'll save my faux snooze rant for another time. They really need to be renamed republican pravda or something.

[lib_wit_it]

32. If you can't beat em, try harder to beat 'em! Where's our 24 hr-a-day left wing propaganda machine?

Where's our Frank Luntz? I know it has something to do with money, but there must be a way.

[Cerridwen]

38. The only way I know of is to

"kill" corporate "persons."

That will not happen overnight...unfortunately.

[Mojeoux]

39. One of the" Back Doors Into the Closed Mind is COMEDY"

It's not an equal to "Hate Talk," but when the Emperor has no clothes, everybody laughs because it's funny. Funny has power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Apart of the spin...

22% of americans will vote for idiots\ dangerous manipulators\ like Palin any day of the week and twice on sunday.

So having 12% of dems ain't shocking, as to Rs... let me make a prediction. She will throw her hat, and she will win one or two primaries. That is the way it is. Her BASE will come out and vote for her, no matter what you and I think... and for a few of them... as I have explained already this week... IT IS the eschatology stupid, and that includes dems and indies.

[kimi]

20. I actually watched her sob-fest on YouTube

She clearly was coached really well, and she hits all the right notes as far as expression, inflection and seeming sincerity. That said, her words are ridiculous, so if you listen with the sound off, she comes off pretty well, to those poll numbers, I'm sure.

Too bad that any presidential candidate would have to make some coherent sense in order to run effectively. I have no doubt that this tragedy in Tucson has scotched any potential for Palin to become our Commander-in-Chief. Yes, idiots still vote, but the majority I think would laugh her out of a serious race.

[lib_wit_it]

22. See, I disagree. To me, it is, in addition to the wild hypocrisy of her words, her facial

expressions. She looks like a very angry bully. She looks out of control.

[treestar]

23. You'd have to have a limited view of the world

Maybe somewhat like hers? To take anything she says seriously at all.

[WiffenPoof]

34. This Just Adds...

to my growing belief that we are in a lot of trouble.

-PLA

[janet118]

37. That poll is crap . . .

Go to HCD Research Inc. staff and check out where these people come from. Note the guy who worked at Brent Bozell's media firm. There are a lot of pharma and health care company men (and women).

This poll is a fraud. When did we start to believe polls and not our own lying eyes?

[sabrina 1]

42. Yes, here is where she was in Oct: Poll: Just 22% See Palin as Effective President

Just 22% See Palin as Effective President

Although she has not ruled out a bid for the White House in 2012, few Americans (22 percent) think Palin has the ability to be an effective president, while 64 percent say she's not up to the job. This view is shared by a majority of Democrats and independents. While Republicans are more divided, more of them think she does not have the ability to be an effective president than think she does.

And this was BEFORE the Tucson tragedy and her Cross-hairs map became common knowledge. I'd bet she's in the teens by now with just the outer fringes supporting her.

That poll in the OP is a fraud. Really shouldn't be helping them spread it around.

[sabrina 1]

41. Her national rating is in the TWENTIES!

This poll was probably overwhelmed by paid Palin operatives.

Ignore it!