Palin’s Popularity Not What it Used to Be.
16 10 2009Gallup did an interesting study on the sagging popularity ratings of some well-known politicians. The primary focus of the article was on John Edwards. He can console himself with the fact that he still remains more popular than: Osama bin Landen, Saddam Hussein, Mark Fuhrman, Fidel Castro, Monica Lewinsky, Yassar Arafat and David Duke. Barely.
The article also focused on another potential political fizzling star.
While Edwards’ national political career is most certainly finished, another former vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, may be just beginning hers. Palin became a bit of a sensation after John McCain tapped her as his running mate last August. But over the course of the campaign, her image suffered, going from a 53% favorable rating immediately after the 2008 Republican National Convention to 42% by the end of the campaign.
Palin’s ratings have not recovered, and her current 40% favorable rating is the lowest for her since she became widely known after last year’s Republican convention.
It’s worth noting that Palin’s favorability rating in her home state went from a stratospheric 89% at its highest in May of 2007, to 46.8% in May of this year. The fact that her approval rating is only 6.8 percent higher in Alaska than in the rest of the nation gives me a certain sense of pride. We’ve come a long way, baby. And it ain’t over yet.
[h/t Dr. Chill]
Palin’s popularity still soars in the rapidly shrinking and radicalized Republican Party, however. Of the 20% of Americans left (less than those who approved of George W. Bush) who identify as Republicans, a whopping 69% think Palin is the cat’s meow.
69% of 20% may be good enough to sell books, but good enough to get her elected to the highest office in the land? Not so much. Really, it should be every Democrat’s dream to see a Palin 2012 run for the White House. It would not only be enough to secure Obama a second term, but it might actually cause the complete destruction of the Republican Party.
Then, Eisenhower can quit rolling over in his grave.
Apparently I’m not the only one who likes this idea.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Mea culpa. I want to update my earlier post stating that Liz Cheney’s Keep America Safe web video attacks Keith and Rachel. It attacks Keith, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz but not Rachel. It turns out that Rachel has invited Liz on her show several times but has been turned down!
October 17th, 2009 at 6:42 AM
@ 38 Wolf Pack Says: Her book “Going Ragu”
Now, that’s funny.
BTW, did anyone see Jon Stewart rip the new GOP website? I don’t have the link right now, but worth watching. That idiot, Steele, had a new blog called
“What up?” that disappeared within a few days to be replaced with a different name.
OMG, is he for real? What up? Ya’, that’s takin’ it to the streets, Steele. He also calls the GOP the party of new ideas? Really? Name one.
He was in Utah yesterday and gave a little speech. I think he was stumping for someone here. But, he was backtracking on the comment he made last year about Mitt not getting the nomination because of his Mormon faith. Now, he was trying to suck up to the Mormon’s. Sigh….how embarassing is this guy?
October 17th, 2009 at 6:49 AM
I want to see a Liz Cheney and Sarah Bailin’ smackdown. Now THAT would be entertaining.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:53 AM
I start to get all worked up about Psycho Sarah getting the nomination, and then I remember she’ll have to face her fellow RepubliSCUMs first. And who might they be? Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee…all former (or current) governors who will tear her to shreds for resigning her post. Problem solved!
October 17th, 2009 at 6:59 AM
# 48 Paula, great find on that video. But I’m guessing the truth is going to be even stranger than the fiction. If you saw the video with Chuck Heath, you might understand where I’m coming from.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Her numbers are still that high because there is very little about her in the mainstream media, and what there is, is written very cautiously. They didn’t show her resignation speech in its full incoherent, gasping, raging glory. Only those of us who are still following her realize how mental she is. I can believe the 40%, because most people have ignored her since the election which was a year ago, and in that year her memory has faded to “Oh yeah, Sarah Palin… well, didn’t do so good in the election…. resigned the governorship for familiy reasons… probably a nice enough person.” Whereas we know, we’ve read, about her vengefulness, and we’ve actually read what she’s sad and realize her ignorance, and we know about the witch-hunter in her church, and we realize that she lied about “the retarded baby” (sorry, I hate that too, but it just summarizes the kind of person she is). We know. But most people don’t.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:01 AM
I should mention that was the video on Palingates in the last day or so.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:11 AM
I don’t want to see Palin/Bachman 2012. I just want them to go away. Giving them the nomination would give them way to much attention. Surely, noone wants to listening to Scarah’sshrill speeches and he lying about her family and that gawd awful sex crazed Bachman rant. Don’t encourage the idiots at the GOP or these two goofy, despicable females.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:27 AM
IvyFreeborn: I love that old word, “mental.” She is mental!!
October 17th, 2009 at 7:33 AM
I agree w/ Karen in Texas. Nice to see her go away. But -since she won’t, it sure would be fun to watch her “fellow” Republican tear her to little tiny shreds when she has to speak w/out the help of hired writers.
I was wondering -why no book from Levi? Is he awaiting her book so he can counter all of her imaginary stories? I sure hope he writes a book…
October 17th, 2009 at 7:42 AM
The GOP created the teabagger third party (most likely spot for the Palin/Bachman campaign) by indulging and participating in all the crazy hate speech. Now their creation is chasing them around the laboratory. This may be more fun to watch than “Young Frankenstein”.
I don’t know how the GOP survives as a national party, since some of its more lucid members are being shouted down by the crazies.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Casually telling a pollster that you approve of Palin isn’t the same as saying that you’d like the “moran” to be the President of our great nation.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Big Pete #62, bingo. When asked who should be the presidential candidate, the GOP ranks her third or fourth behind Huckabee, Romney, and in some cases Pawlenty. Any of them could clean her clock in in primary, where she might have to actually answer a question. If she’s a candidate, it is as a third party teabagger.
BTW, isn’t this the day the kooks are supposed to picket their local “liberal media” outlets. Wow, two million teabaggers at each local station!
October 17th, 2009 at 8:36 AM
“Todd and I talked about Hurricane Katrina as God’s way of cleansing New Orleans of the blacks who have sinned, the Bible predicted it” –Sarah Palin
I never realized that palin as also a racist too.
Doesn’t she realized Trent Lott was wiped out too? What is the explanation for that? Maybe because he was a republican?
October 17th, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Wow, where did you get that quote Dianne?
October 17th, 2009 at 8:45 AM
#64 Diane, she said that? When? If that’s an accurate quote she needs to be committed. I’ve heard about a lot of psycho babble that has come out of her mouth, but not that one. So let’s see in addition to being intellectually stunted,
snarky, immature and hypocritical we now get to add racist?
October 17th, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Did any of you watch Letterman last night? He had a Palin slam during his
monolog. It was something like “The new movie ‘Where the Wild Things Are’
debuted today. By the end of the movie Sarah Palin had hunted down and killed all of them.”
DD
October 17th, 2009 at 9:04 AM
“I don’t believe in interracial relationships, I was born in Idaho and raised to believe that whites and blacks shouldn’t mix or date each other” (1986)
“I want creationism as the only theory taught in our schools” (2001)
“I don’t know a lot about Iran, I just heard that they are bad people”(2006)
“He can say he is a Christian but as far as I’m concerned, Obama is a Muslim, look at his middle name” (2007)
“The bible will at some point, be in every classroom in our great state if I have my way” (2005)
“Here in Alaska, we don’t have hardly any black people, I never talk to them, so I was surprised that a black girl beat me in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant” (1988)
“Todd and I talked about Hurricane Katrina as God’s way of cleansing New Orleans of the blacks who have sinned, the Bible predicted it” (2005)
October 17th, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Here’s what the Gallup Poll said about its survey:
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,013 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 1-4, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To put that into superficial perspective:
There are three categories of responses – 50% Unfavorable, 40% Favorable, 10% No Opinion.
They called 1, 013 Americans. 507 human beings in America disapprove of Sarah Palin. 405 people approve of her. 101 people had no opinion.
Census population of U.S. = 304 million
Census population, over the age of 18 = 200 million very roughly
Number of registered voters = 170 million
Demographic of human beings responding = don’t know
Conclusions –
1,013 is a ridiculously tiny fraction of adult Americans. Too small to accurately measure anything.
Assuming all 50 states, but not territories, and evenly distributed, this represents about 20 people per state. How did they distribute the 13 people left over?
Completely invalid as an accurate measure of what adult Americans think.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Very insightful article. Worth reading and thinking about.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/21/forget-obama-and-david-brooks-it-is-about-race/
Race is the never-ending debate of America. In recent days, former President Jimmy Carter said that the intense opposition to President Barack Obama was fueled by racial bigotry. New York Times columnist David Brooks opined that “race is largely beside the point.”
He contended that the current attack on Barack Obama was race-free populist rage against the elites in the tradition of Huey Long or Father Coughlin. (He did overlook the inconvenient fact that Coughlin’s populism was built on a virulent anti-Semitism.)
At Friday’s daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say that race was a factor in criticism of the president. “He just won’t go there,” one reporter in the room whispered to me as Gibbs ducked the question. Once burned — the Skip Gates controversy — twice shy, especially on race. And during his Sunday talkathon, Obama maintained that race was not the main thing, telling CNN: “Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are. That’s not the overriding issue here.”
Obama may be right that it’s not the overriding issue. What’s happening is the continuation of a political culture war. But race is certainly a part of this ongoing conflict.
Before I explain, let’s review some of the race-related aspects of the latest spate of Obama-bashing. Years before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “You lie” at Obama, he was one of the fiercest defenders of flying the Confederate flag over the state capitol of South Carolina. His explanation at the time: “The Confederate heritage is very honorable.” What was honorable about fighting for states’ rights so an economy based on slavery could be preserved?
Well, we’ve been through this before. But is it a coincidence that a man enamored of the Confederate heritage would show such disrespect to Obama? Perhaps. But consider Glenn Beck, the cheerleader-in-chief for the Sept.12 Tea Baggers rally. He called Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” That’s certainly not something Beck would have said about a white politician with whom he disagreed. There’s also Rush Limbaugh. Responding to a story about a fight on a school bus, he echoed Beck’s sentiment: “In Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Hmmm, wonder why that would be?
And at the 9/12 rally in Washington, my colleague Stephanie Mencimer heard protesters yelling, “Obama’s on crack” and “String him up.” Would they be saying that about a president who was white? Maybe. But I have my doubts. The color of Obama’s skin does seem to get under the skin of some of his detractors.
But even if race is not the overriding issue — as Brooks and Obama appear to agree — Obama hatred is not about heroic small-town Americans rebelling against detached elites. (George W. Bush had impeccable elitist credentials, and he didn’t draw this sort of ire.) This is about a clash between two visions of America that has been underway since the 1960s. One is the culturally conservative view of a country made up mainly of traditional families — Christian and white — accepting of traditional values and the perspective of the United States as the center of the universe.
The other is a more secular, dynamic and tolerant society composed of different groups that is part of a changing world with shifting balances of power. At John McCain and Sarah Palin rallies last year, I encountered voters who seemed to believe that their way of life — or view of reality — was threatened by Obama. He’s a communist, some said — hurling a loaded term that has been used to demonize people for decades. Obama, they feared, was going to rock their world and deliver America into the hands of its — meaning, their — enemies.
Race is not absent from this face-off. The president is always a symbol of the nation, a representation of the country’s self-identity. As a biracial (self-identified black) man from a non-traditional, multinational family, Obama sure represents a changing America. The effort to delegitimize him (beyond just opposing him and his policies) does seem connected to his — shall we say — heritage. Quite literally. Ask the birthers.
Since the South lost the battle over segregation a few decades ago, it has often been tough to sift out race and derive the precise percentage of its impact on national debates. (How much did race affect the federal and national response to Hurricane Katrina? Who can say? Maybe people across America just didn’t care so much about poor people.) Not everything that’s significant is measurable. Yet whatever role race plays in the Obama opposition, the people leading this from-the-right dissent can be judged by their willingness to confront the racism that is part of their movement. Otherwise, they will have no credibility when they claim this really isn’t about race.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:51 AM
President Obama, October 2009
“What I reject is when some folks sit on the sidelines and root for failure.”
“I’m busy.” “We don’t want somebody sitting back saying you’re not holding the mop the right way.
“Why don’t you grab a mop? Why don’t you help clean up?
“Grab a mop!” “Let’s get to work.”
“I want everybody to know who’s standing in the way of progress, I’m not tired. I’m just getting started. You can throw whatever you want at me. Keep it coming.”
“We’re going to get this done. We’re going to get health care done. We’re going to get clean energy done. We’re going to get climate change done. We’re going to fix our schools. We’re going to fix the problems internationally that I was elected to deal with.”
On health care reform:
“We’re going to be going at it.” “There are going to be some fierce arguments over the next couple of weeks about health care. There should be. This is big. But understand that the bill that you least like of the five bills that got passed would all provide millions of people who don’t have coverage coverage, would all prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, would all set up an exchange for small businesses to compete and get the same deal that big businesses do for their employees, would all provide subsidies to people who have health insurance and give them a measure of security – all of them.”
Quoting Abraham Lincoln to California: “It’s a pretty mess you got me into, but I forgive you.”
October 17th, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I see that she is lifting Obamas YES WE CAN slogan.
He thought it was hokey, but Michelle persuaded him to use it, and it was effective.
It is better than her refrigerator magnet slogans.
I wonder how it can be turned against her if she takes it as a mantra for her new organization.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
The only viable republican they have for 2012 IMO is Pawlenty and even he has a way to go,Huckbee is in with the people who think god had Katrina hit new Orleans for a reason.And they complained when Reverand wright said the twin towers was punishment.Romney is just another rich man that wants more power.I fear that Murdock will push palin as far as he can if he is not stopped.IMO that video about the palin family meeting rings true especially from what has actually been shown to be the truth about some things in that family. Family services should check into that family IMO
October 17th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Her ratings are going down like the price of her book…………now $10…..$9….in the 69% off bin at Amazon… going, going ………..gone?.
The reason her ratings have fallen, is that folks have caught on to the fact, that Palin is just a…… “TIN CUP GRIFTER”
Like the song says:
The best things in life are free
But you can keep ‘em for the birds and bees;
Now give me money, (that’s what I want) that’s what I want,
(That’s what I want) That’s what I want (That’s what I want) yeah,
That’s what I want.
Your lovin’ give me such a thrill,
But your lovin’ don’t pay my bills;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Palin’s have purchased property and have begun construction on the site……..located next door to their current home (with it’s float plane and dock), as reported here at the Mudflats.
Palin’s have plans, for a large life for themselves and this new construction is just a start..
Therefore Sarah has her ducks lined up in a row now.
One stop donation page for Palin………..SarahPac, Alaska Fund Trust, her new “book” and space for her new national “organization”…Stand Up For Our Nation
WARNING..this might make you sick:
http://tinyurl.com/r6fg2z
Update……Rumour has it that there is ANOTHER book in the works!:
The Fleecing of America by the Rogue to Nowhere
October 17th, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Elementary algebra to consider:
If the numerator (in this case, the # of Thugger folks happy with SP remains relatively stable), but the denominator keeps shrinking (# of folks identifying them as Thuggers period), the approval percentage/rate will rise.
Sample….100 out of 1000 is a 10% ‘approval, but 100 out of 500 is a 20% approval.
It’s all relative to the total/denominator. And y’all know that the Thugger identifier numbers has shrunken considerably since last summer.
PS: I had an awful time spelling denominator correctly. I kept typing demoninator. Kinda like the misspelling whenever thinking about Thuggers!
October 17th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
That bumper sticker should read 2012 1/2 we all know she’s a quitter
October 17th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Now that she really has nothing to do, but figure out how to spend what money she has accrued, and how to get her hands on more. I wonder if she reads her negative press?
I often don’t read the Huffington Press.com comments on Palin, because it is usually re-iterates all the same things that drive people all bats.
Except she doesn’t really drive me bats, I’m entertained, amused, even if I loathe her political ambitions, and want to stop her getting anywhere near the White House.
I’m not a snarky woman, but I do get fairly snarky about Palin.
I do feel sorry for her growing up under Chuck Heaths tutaledge after seeing that French clip on Palingates, and the pyramid of bones that he uses for the HEATHES on his lawn. Reminds me of those grottos made from human bones in Europe. Saw one in the Czech Republic. Skulls and bones. Like the bones littering the mouth of a monsters cave. And the taxidermy living room is a bit creepy.
While Palin is certainly a good looking woman when she smiles, her jaw and mouth can contort in Benito Musselini juttings,( similar to his balcony shots) her mouth into this strange moue. I think she has it in her to be a dictator, or demigod type of fascista. She will never give up her place on this countries stage till she is kicked out completly.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:50 AM
lilly – someone found Palin’s fascist poster, soon to be decorating winger conclaves everywhere and hopefully nowhere else anwhere…I think I mean what I just said. At any rate, da link:
http://wonkette.com/411674/would-you-like-a-little-sarah-palin-inspiration-to-go-with-that-unicorn
October 17th, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Actually her jutting jaw has been compared to a underjaw of a Salmon. I think on immoral minority by a poster there.
Going upstream against the flow trying to get to the White House, and getting eaten along the way by a big mama grizzley, not to get up to the spawning grounds.
The horses hooves on that poster sure look like twin streams of mucas coming out of her nose.
Actually I think Palingates tends to find the best unflattering shots of Palin.
It is sad that the Huffington post tends to post her more flattering shots, though lately they have been using a few of the less flattering shots.
She is photogenic, but sometimes her soul comes through and you see the real Sarah. And” it ain’t purty.”
October 17th, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Referencing Wolf Pack’s post @ #38 re: sales prices:
Word up from someone I know that’s still in the book/publishing business:
“People who are finding out that Amazon & other places are now reducing drastically the selling price are canceling their existing orders, waiting a day or so to have it clear the system, then reordering it at the lower price.”
Oh, ohhhhhhhhh!
If that’s the case, Murdoch had better have hedged his own bet with SP, and he likely has a bunch of incentives/goals in the contract that must be reached before SP gets any additional bounty/reward. Murdoch has to be kicking himself over the contract he’s signed regardless.
Back when I worked for another publisher, Simon & Schuster (1980-1986), it cost about $3-3.75 per book to edit/produce/store/publicize/deliver a typical 300 page hardcover without full color, glossy photo inserts, written by a non-high profile author and without any advance. Using inflation & current paper costs on those figures, the production cost is likely to be in the $6-7 per book range now for a typical 300 page hardcover book. Adding in the profit amount guaranteed to the sellers, you’re likely closer to $8/book.
If you have a hardcover with full color, glossy photo inserts, up the above costs by about 15-25%, depending on the number of photo pages (usually a multiple of 4 pages) , AND THAT STILL does not factor in any advance!!!!
- – - – - – - – -
Alas, this is not a typical book, so the publicity costs alone will be skyrocketing above normal budgeted amounts:
posters,
massive numbers of ads in various media,
special “security” costs for the publishers staff to keep an “eye on” the whole process to avoid leaks before the book is released (think of the precautions involving the Harry Potter books),
travel costs for personal visits/signings to tout the tome – likely first class all the way,
and
security.
My guess, based on well known info on this project, is the per book production cost for this book will be around $13-15 per book without photos/$15-18 with photos – BOTH without any advance factored in. Add in the rumored advance, raise those costs about $1/book (if contract is for $1 million advance & 1 million books in the initial print run).
I haven’t even factored in 1) the costs related to any returned/remaindered books, 2) the costs associated with the destroying of any books upon return, and 3) any penalties for the book’s failures to reach contracted sales amounts (sellers oriented mainly).
In my best estimation: Murdoch would likely lose money if the overall average sales price of $22/book or less.
Poetic justice I say if sales & pricing continue the trend they’ve shown in the past week.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
59 lilybart Says: October 17th, 2009 at 7:27 AM
IvyFreeborn: I love that old word, “mental.” She is mental!!
Now I’ll have Ed Grimley (Martin Short, SNL) on my mind!
As Seinfeld would say, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
October 17th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
73 jojobo1 Says: October 17th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I fear that Murdock will push palin as far as he can if he is not stopped.
Unless the book sells like crazy at a sales volume & pricing level that gets him a tidy bundle of cash coming in to cover all costs (ie: big profit), he won’t be pushing SP anywhere except to the recycle/destruction bin of history.
Ole Murdoch doesn’t tolerate folks who lose him money, so expect those in-house/on staff who pushed this project along to get the boot also too (couldn’t resist!)
October 17th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Sarah Palin’s book has been reduced to $8.99 or $9.99 by Amazon and Walmart.com because of a price war, according to “Price War Over Books Worries Industry” in today’s New York Times. The price war includes 10 prepublication titles (authors include John Grisham, Stephen King and Dean Koontz) expected to be holiday best sellers. Thus Amazon and Walmart are selling Palin’s book at a loss since their cost per title is probably 50% of the book’s list price of $28.99.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Trisha:
Let’s ask MTV to do a Celebrity Death Match with Palin v. Cheney or Palin v. Fey
what a riotous time it would be
October 17th, 2009 at 2:10 PM
The price war couldn’t have come at a better time. Sorry about some of the other authors but they are not first time authors with an agenda. 28.99 to 8.99 what a difference a day makes.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:13 PM
84 aha Says: October 17th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Let’s ask MTV to do a Celebrity Death Match with Palin v. Cheney or Palin v. Fey
Better yet:
Palin&Cheney v Fey.
Cheney kills Palin, since he can’t stand her, then Fey (in Palin garb) does him in!
October 17th, 2009 at 3:51 PM
On her favorability rating, all I can say is thank God for small favors.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Popularity or favorability….whatever. When the pollsters ask more detailed questions about Palin, the true story comes out. Although Palin’s “favorables” were similar at the end of July as currently, the following WSJ/NBC poll from that time adds more significant data:
“A solid majority of Americans don’t want to see Sarah Palin ever become president, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Two-thirds, 67%, said they don’t ever want the former Alaska governor to be president, compared with the 21% who said they would.
While it should come as no surprise that 87% of Democrats said they don’t ever want Palin as commander-in-chief, some 43% of Republicans said the same thing—as well as 65% of independents.
Even 46% of self-identified conservatives said they do not want Palin as president, as well as 44% of those who voted for Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain in 2008.
At 44%, white evangelicals are the largest subgroup supporting Palin as president one day.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/29/wsjnbc-poll-would-you-like-to-see-palin-as-president-someday/
October 17th, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Another poll by FOX news at the end of July 2009 is my personal favorite. Read and laugh:
“About a third of Americans think the best job for Palin is homemaker (32 percent), while nearly one in five see her as a television talk show host (17 percent). Vice president of the United States comes in third (14 percent), followed closely by college professor (10 percent), with president coming last (6 percent).
Republicans think the best job for Palin is vice president (27 percent), followed by homemaker (18 percent), talk show host (14 percent), president (12 percent) and professor (7 percent).
More Americans have a negative view of Palin than have a positive one. While 38 percent say they have a favorable opinion of her, 51 percent have an unfavorable view.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/fox-news-poll-percent-disapprove-congress/
October 17th, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I’m looking forward to an SNL match: Tina Fey reprising Palin and Amy Poehler coming back to do Liz Cheney.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Regarding price wars on books. Sorry, but retailers do not discount items by 50% or more if they can get full price. They discount the items they CAN’T sell at full price.
It may be a good seller at 9.99 (maybe–maybe not) but it seems they already know that people won’t pay full price for this book. Believe me, there are tons of new releases that NOT in the discount bin. Not many books go into the clearance bin even before they are released.