The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Gallup: 70 Percent Say Palin's Decision to Resign Has No Effect on Their Opinion

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Gallup: 70 Percent Say Palin's Decision to Resign Has No Effect on Their Opinion

By Philip Klein on 7.7.09 @ 5:31PM

A new Gallup poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say that Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska has no effect on their opinion of her. At the same time, 17 percent view her less favorably as a result of the move, and 9 percent view her more favorably. Meanwhile, Palin continues to be polarizing, with 43 percent saying they would be very or somewhat likely to vote for her as president and 54 percent saying they would be "not too likely" or "not at all likely" to vote for her. But the media gets overwhelmingly bad reviews, with 53 percent of Americans saying that coverage of Palin has been "unfairly negative" while only 9 percent say it's "unfairly positive" and 28 percent say it's "about right."

Gallup notes:

Palin's abrupt resignation with 18 months left in her first term as governor has probably raised more questions than answers about her political future. But the move has apparently not affected Americans' basic opinions of her to a large degree. As political observers eagerly await her next career move, roughly 19% of U.S. voters say they would be very likely to vote for her should she run for president in 2012, and another 24% say they would be somewhat likely to do so. While still the minority of all voters, it is perhaps not a bad start for an election still three years away, and arguably could put Palin in a better starting position than some of the lesser-known GOP candidates who may also seek the party's presidential nomination.

What the poll does not measure, however, is the opportunity cost of Palin's decision. While most Americans' opinions of Palin were largely unmoved by the act of quitting itself, the fact that she is leaving office after two and a half years makes will make it harder to convince skeptics who believe she does not have the necessary experience to be president.

View all comments (21) | Leave a comment

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 6:03PM

You judged her too soon, Klein. So many of you guys underestimate her.

Sarah's crazy---like a fox and I believe she's a force to be reckoned with. At least she's never dull.

Sarah Baynes| 7.7.09 @ 6:38PM

Sarah Palin could do the country a mountain of good if she were able to bring the truth of all this administrations take over of our country without an outrage. Those of us who are outraged have no spokesperson. She would be a wonder and able to reach the people who can make a difference and help save us from fiscal ruin.

Liberal Reader| 7.7.09 @ 6:42PM

This poll says nothing.

Less than a week after an event polls don't register accurate information. But even if it is accurate, all it says is that people who liked her before still like her, and people who didn't like her still don't like her.

Flower Power| 7.7.09 @ 6:57PM

Well, NO ONE here likes you Liberal Reader troll. Go back under the slimy rock from whence you came.

hermit| 7.7.09 @ 7:03PM

It don't mean nothin, it don't mean nothin nothin nothin...... I just can't stop laughing at the drive of her detracters to convince themselves of her insignificance...

ahhh yes smell the air... fear.. I can smell it.

Mary| 7.7.09 @ 7:32PM

I'm not surprised at these numbers. This isn't a nunber that's likely to change because no one is going to be sitting around contemplating the question(s) involved. What she does from here on in will matter tremendously.

Obama was elected without any experience. His experience at the time of the election was less than Palin's. His position papers meant nothing to 95% of the electorate. His resume was very thin for a man his age. His stint as Sr. Law Lecturer sounds nice, but it's worthless in terms of understanding bread and butter issues. It's not like he's Gerry Spence material.

He opened the door for Palin and thinner resumes. I say thinner because how padded was that of Clinton or Bush, really? Clinton's Arkansas ranked 49 out of 50 in education.

In President Bush's years as a business man, what was his success/failure record?

Did Clinton's removal of Glass-Steagall help to cause economic collapse? (I listen to Bob Brinker of Money Talks and he thinks the act was a decent piece of regulation that worked well for a very long time. I wonder what Louis Rukeyser would say?)

When '12 rolls around Obama will be able to say "I've been doing this for 4 years now, and while I still give one hell of a speech, so everyone tells me, now I know something about debt too. If you'll give me another four years I'm sure you know I'll come to know something about retiring debt as well." "And what about those jobs I saved or created?"

What if she starts soliciting advice from Giuliani? She's not an ideologue. Might she be able to follow Obama's litany by asking him if he intends to instruct us on how to appreciate a lower standard of living?

Unless the economy rebounds successfully, with a 90s feel; he's vulnerable. And while, I'm no economist, I think the 90s, like the 60s aren't coming back anytime too soon.

Mary| 7.7.09 @ 7:38PM

That should read Money Talk, not talks.

Alan Brooks| 7.7.09 @ 9:48PM

she might win the nominatiion in 2012,
but she would lose the election to the black Clinton redux 1996

question now is: who is the space colonization/ immortality au Go Go Gingrich-imitation of next year?

Carly| 7.7.09 @ 9:55PM

The clueless remain clueless post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=2098

Ran| 7.7.09 @ 10:33PM

Mary, great to see you.

Mr. Klein, please spare us the "necessary experience" criterion. I don't believe I'm alone when I say I would prefer "necessary value system" and "necessary commitment to the Constitution" over "experience." Especially when effete pundits set the "experience" standard.

Further, I'm not interested in "experience" when "experience" is relative to the task of Governing: Point of fact, not a few of us want the next leader to actively reduce Government, to roll-back Federal powers and to un-do much of the "progress" of statist cancer. Someone "experienced" in the political art of compromise is exactly what we don't want. [The only potential candidate I can think of with any relevant experience in this regard happens to be Palin, though that may be unfair to good Governors I've overlooked.] What we need is someone willing to create the unfamiliar art of re-Constituting our Nation.

I don't yet know if Palin is that candidate. I do know I'm ruling out Newt and any other squish who thinks he can do Statist "smarter" than the Democrats.

Roy| 7.7.09 @ 10:56PM

Actually, 30% is an awfully high number to have their opinion affected by one decision.

Of course, you have to subtract out the kind of people who are going to say "more positive" or "more negative" to everything, but still.

Honestly, I think the Left, acting through the media, will be able to play bait and switch forever on allegedly important qualifications. Get a genius with 30 years of experience in government and suddenly "youth" and "hopeychange" will be absolutely vital, and subservient conservative pundits will go along. It'll always be that yes they'd like a conservative president, just never THIS conservative president.

Mary| 7.7.09 @ 11:15PM

Ran,

Feeling is mutual.

I'm ruling out Newt too. IMO, he's not electable. And his weasel factor is up there. No more weasels, Ran.

I don't think McCain was a weasel, by the way. He never had the affection for conservatives that he should have had. I was glad to see him come to Palin's defense recently, though I think he should have done so long before this.

Palin was asked today if she regretted saying yes to McCain, and she beamed as she said no. I respect that very much. She had reason to feel abandoned by him, if she wanted to.

I wish her the best, I really do.

Ran I agree with you about rolling back powers, but I think we have to steel ourselves to the understanding that it can't be done overnight. If Palin (or whoever) wins she's going to have to govern and that usually means reform by piecemeal.

A lot of us have taken Pell grants ourselves or for our children. A lot of us have received unemployment. One of the biggest problems we face is that we're philosophically conservative but operationally liberal. I don't mean you, Ran. I mean Americans in general.

We need to believe in ourselves again. And you know what, that's exactly what Reagan's gift was, the ability to make us believe in ourselves again.

Obama is almost always the brooding, morose president.

Basil Plumley| 7.8.09 @ 7:43AM

Ran and Mary

Very good points. I must repeat Ran's point made in another post (in another thread) that our job starts now for 2010. We have to make sure the GOP candidates are very conservative or at the very least committed to the points you both espoused here.

Charles K. Hamster| 7.8.09 @ 9:40AM

Do not be fooled by polls, Mr. Klein. You and I had this called correctly immediately after she announced. It was a political suicide, until I say otherwise. Carry on.

Thomas| 7.8.09 @ 9:54AM

Ok, several points in this thread.

First, Palin quits. Every single group in American that opposes Sarah Palin the politician is highly critical of this decision. Democrats, liberals, the media and moderate Republicans all unanimously oppose her decision to quit. When all of your enemies oppose your actions, you might just have hit on something.

Conservatives have to realize one thing. We [conservatives] are responsible for the election of Barack Obama. Liberals are going to vote for the most liberal candidate, always. Independents vote on a whim, but they usually vote for liberals. Conservatives vote for conservatives or not at all. And it was those that stayed home on election day who swung the election for Obama. Now we have an entrenched liberal kook Congress, a socialist President, wacko environmentalists, crazed crackpot dictators and politically correct media cowards trying to bring down the nation. And only conoservatives can stop it.

Flower Power| 7.8.09 @ 11:19AM

Thomas, I'll cop to a lot of things, but electing that fool president is not and never will be one of them.

I shall let the idiots who voted for him have that dubious honor. Thanks anyway.

Liberal Reader| 7.8.09 @ 11:27AM

Thomas --

Your assertion that "independents vote for liberals" is false.

People who describe themselves as "liberals" make up less than 20% of the electorate.

Independents by and large vote Republican.

My evidence?

See American history since WWII.

Eisenhower -- 2 terms
Kennedy -- 1 term
Johnson -- 1 term
Nixon -- 2 terms
Carter -- 1 term
Reagan -- 2 terms
Bush Sr - 1 term
Clinton -- 2 terms
Bush Jr. -- 2 terms. (Well, I agree, that's complicated.)

Add it up.

Thomas| 7.8.09 @ 1:29PM

LR,

Sorry, dude, but there are no true conservatives on your list. All governed to the left on social issues, which are the issues that drive independents. Republican does not equal conservative, as the last election proved.

Now, what you failed to take into account in your list is who the Republican candidate was when the Democrats won office. In every case, none was conservative enough to get most of the conservative voters to the polls. When that happens, Republicans lose, all of the time.

Heather Robinson| 7.8.09 @ 6:46PM

Hey Klein, you are up against a whole lot of emotion here--the Palin-lovers, understandably angered by the vile treatment she and her family got from the "progressive" media, don't take kindly to your rational and rigorous analysis, but as you point out above, her decision will have a real opportunity cost. That's just reality. Instead of jumping all over you, fellow conservatives should be thanking you for your rigorous examination of facts and analysis of events. Thanks for upholding a true journalistic objectivity, as ever--it takes guts.

Heather Robinson| 7.8.09 @ 6:47PM

Hey Klein, you are up against a whole lot of emotion here--the Palin-lovers, understandably angered by the vile treatment she and her family got from the "progressive" media, don't take kindly to your rational and rigorous analysis, but as you point out above, her decision will have a real opportunity cost. That's just reality. Instead of jumping all over you, fellow conservatives should be thanking you for your rigorous examination of facts and analysis of events. Thanks for upholding true journalistic objectivity, as ever--it takes guts.