polls on palin

[themadscientist]

Rasmussenhttp://www.rasmussenreports.co...laska in Alaska, the 44-year old Governor and hockey mom earns good or excellent ratings from 64% of voters statewide

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...biden

When Biden was selected, just over half (52%) of Democrats believed he was the right choice. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans say McCain picked the right running mate in Palin, and 40% of unaffiliated voters agree

Zogbyhttp://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1547

Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 29% who said it hurt. Another 10% said it made no difference, while 10% were unsure. Among independent voters, 52% said it helps, while 26% said it would hurt. Among women, 48% said it would help, while 29% said it would hurt the GOP ticket. Among Republicans, the choice was a big hit - as 87% said it would help, and just 3% said it would hurt.

[rn79870]

You forgot the Gallop poll for August 31st. In that poll, McCain fell from even to a 9 point deficit, overnight. Although the public likes Palin, they realize that she has no qualifications whatsoever to step into the job of President should McCain succumb to his advanced age and his battle with cancer.

I think a 9 point drop overnight has to be a record loss for any candidate -ever.

[themadscientist]

I just want to quote you for posterity.

Although the public likes Palin, they realize that she has no qualifications whatsoever to step into the job of President should McCain succumb to his advanced age and his battle with cancer.

She has more executive experience than your presidential candidate. You doubt her ability to step in as president for McCain. I doubt Obama's ability to step in as president for Bide, wait, oh that's right the more qualified guy on the Dem's side is riding in the back seat. Oh wait holy shiznit that means your presidential candidate is less experienced in running a government than our vice presidential candidate! You guys haven't seemed to notice yet though.

Oh and you got little to no bump from Biden

As Gallup has noted in recent weeks, both the vice presidential selections and the national conventions have historically produced small bumps in support for the presidential candidates associated with those events (on the order of about five percentage points for each). However, this year, Obama's announcement of Joe Biden as his running mate produced no immediate increase in support for Obama in a one-night USA Today/Gallup reaction poll.

Oh and it's six points by the way, unless you are quoting Phil Gallup, the guy at the Burger King drive thru.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109....aspx

[rn79870]

Executive experience running a state with 1/2 the population and 1/4 the issues of San Diego? Seriously, no one is buying that. The Heartbeat thing, remember... governing 700,000 people for 18+ months doesn't make VP material. (in any playbook)

[themadscientist]

Are you suggesting then that being a "community organizer" does. You are trying to weigh your president against my vice president and he is lighter than her buddy. She has balanced a state budget he has, er um, what was that thing he did where he ran a government, oh yeah right, he has run nothing! He isn't a heartbeat away, he wants to be the one with the heartbeat everyone cares about. You should really read my screen, I guess you have an irony filter on yours or something. You say these things like you mean them.

[srellim234]

themadscientist- her state budget surplus had absolutey nothing to do with her. It would have had the surplus off of the old taxes due to the runup in oil prices. She did, however, pull off a windfall profits tax against the oil companies that the Republicans conveniently claim was "standing up to big oil" instead of condemning as being against what they stand for. Then she sent the extra money out to her constituents. Took corporate profits away from companies and redistributed it to all the people of her state. Sounds "Obamanesque" to me. It's wrong no matter which party practices wealth redistribution.

Things can be looked at in many ways.
Modified by srellim234 at 9:39 AM 9/1/2008

[HashiriyaS14]

The "executive experience" argument is stupid, if for no other reason than both sides like to both ignore it and utilize it depending on who's running.

The Republicans slammed Clinton for not having any foreign policy experience but the Democrats championed him as having nearly 10 years of executive experience as Arkansas governor.

The Democrats then proceeded to slam GW Bush for having no foreign policy experience and the Republicans, who'd just attacked Clinton for the same thing, defended Bush.

And again, in this race, we see the same thing happening.

This argument will ALWAYS be levied in any campaign wherein someone is running with only gubernatorial experience.

It's retarded, people are always on both sides of the fence, and I'm tired of hearing it. Both sides are equally to blame for the hypocrisy.

[Jimefam]

First of all being governer of alaska is not great experience no matter how long you serve let alone less than 2 yrs experience. There simply isn't alot going on there. Any mayor of a decent sized city has far more "executive" experience than her. And certainly obama has more experience than her as he has served as a us senator for four years which isn't running anything but exposes him to a far greater number of national and international issues and decision to make. Neither candidate is very experienced for the job but experience in politics does not always make for a better leader simply a better politician. Bush had plenty of experience as governor of a huge state for 8 years and how did that work out?

[96Qowner]

I just love the way the argument is whether Palin has more or less experience than Obama.

He's been looking smaller and smaller every week. Now everyone is comparing him to the Republican's VP nominee. This sinks in with the general population.

Unfortunately, it seems that Obama supporters just don't think before they speak, so it continues, day by day. Now, Democratic partisans are busy insulting women with their insinuations about Palin's mothering abilities, and every family whose teenage daughter got pregnant - about a million a year in this country.

Ouch. And the Republicans haven't even had their convention yet. I heard last night that the tracking polls have dropped right back to where they were - a VERY short, VERY small bounce for Obama.

I don't see Obama recovering his lead again. We'll see if a few hundred million in advertising will help him now. I have my doubts, if Democrats don't start showing some control.

When they attack Palin, they attack Obama.

[srellim234]

My complaints about Palin don't have as much to do about lack of experience as they do the little track record she does have.

From http://www.sitnews.us/0308news....html

"By applying these principals the Senate crafted a spending plan that curbs the growth of state government by $208 million and saves as much of the budget surplus as possible and:

Reduces Governor Palin's proposed operating budget increase from 17 percent to 11.5 percent Slashes the number of new state government positions in the Palin administration's proposed budget by half from 305 to 157 Turned away the expansion of state programs proposed by the Palin administration for a savings of $40 million..."

She pushed the windfall profits tax on big oil and set money to her constituents. How many people are aware that only 35% of themoney collected was in those refunds? She kept most of the money in the government coffers.

Her "standing up to big oil" involved getting a pipeline built by using $500 million in incentives. Involved threatening big oil because they weren't taking the oil out of the ground fast enough, which ultimately makes big oil bigger and richer.

The "Bridge to Nowhere"? She takes credit for saying ,"Thanks, but no thanks" to Congress. The fact is, she accepted the money and just spent it elsewhere. She has consistently lobbied Washington for more $$$.

Her record doesn't back up her claims.

[96Qowner]

But ... she was working for the State of Alaska. Alaska is an energy State.

Taking oil out of the ground faster is good for Alaska and good for the US. Reducing Alaska's budget growth is good for Alaska. Lobbying Washington for more funds for Alaska is good for Alaska. Not building Ted's bridge is a good thing.

I'm not really getting the point of the objection. Are you saying she's anti-business or pro-oil, or both? She's gives them incentives for a pipeline but imposes "windfall profit" taxes? She keeps Federal money instead of taxing Alaskans. Bad for a governor?

Of course, we could compare her record with Obama's couldn't we? Is Obama for or against windfall profit taxes? Is he for or against pipeline incentives? Does Obama have any clue about negotiating with oil companies?

[AZhitman]

I'm still not seeing any dealbreakers.

Seems some fear what she might bring to the table.

And for those on the left, I'd like to remind you that early on, most of you said, "We don't want another damn politician" in office.

She's clearly more than "just another politician".

[srellim234]

She is pro bigger government. She proposed large increases in government expenditures and staffing. Her increase proposals were actually cut down at the legislative level. Reducing budget growth is not reducing the budget. It's still bigger government.

She's pro windfall profits tax and redistributing the wealth to her constituents instead of letting the company's investors reap the benefits of their investment.

She's pro lobbying to get more money from Washington. She tries to deflect it to an "anti" stance when in fact she took the money and spent it elsewhere.

I don't see much that fits the stated Republican ideal of less taxes and smaller government.

[96Qowner]

She is pro bigger government. She proposed large increases in government expenditures and staffing. Her increase proposals were actually cut down at the legislative level. Reducing budget growth is not reducing the budget. It's still bigger government.

???????????

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin's pen sliced through nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in public works projects today, creating unusual alignments among politicians, both in support and in opposition to her vetoes.

The governor did not just kill projects, but aimed to reinvent the whole process for creating the state capital budget.

Palin vetoed literally hundreds of individual projects, ranging from thousands to millions of dollars apiece. Some see her bold action as a necessary response to an out of control budget, while others say she was not prudent or consistent.

House Finance Co-Chair Kevin Meyer was surprised at the size of the vetoes.

"I think the communication could have been a little bit better. I mean, certainly, she said she wanted a more fiscal conservative capital budget, but gosh, it's 40 percent less than last year. So we felt like we were doing a fairly fiscally conservative budget, and we did still save over a billion dollars, most of it going to the education fund," said Meyer, R-Anchorage.

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=6729861

I Googled "Palin budget" - was the 3rd entry on the list.

[srellim234]

You are comparing the reduction in FY2008 to FY2007 which was a proposal of then Gov. Murkowski. Look at your article date and time frame involved. She cut a lot of pet projects out of Murkowski's way of doing things.

I'm comparing her growth proposal FY2009 to her own FY 2008 proposal. She proposed double digit growth in operating spending and a substantial increase in govenment staffing for a state that's not that populous.

[AZhitman]

She proposed double digit growth in operating spending and a substantial increase in govenment staffing for a state that's not that populous.

Consider that the population of Alaska has increased an average of 29.4% each decade for the past four decades.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/s2/chart_popl.html

AK is the 8th fastest-growing state (population-wise) 1995 to 2025 (projected), according to http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf

I'd be pissed if she WASN'T seeking additional funds and increasing staffing.

[audtatious]

I have no issue with her slashing her Gov to the core and then building up from there making smart choices for growth where it is needed. Sounds like smart politics to me, the Fed gov should try that very approach.

[96Qowner]

7% increase in higher education funding ...

In a written statement, Mark Hamilton, president of the centralized University of Alaska system, offered kind words for Palin on Friday.

“Sarah Palin has been very supportive of higher education in the state of Alaska, especially voc[ational]-ed and workforce training programs, which we do a lot of here at the University of Alaska,” Hamilton said.

“Under Gov. Palin, our FY09 operating budget increased by 7 percent, $20.5 million over the prior year. This covered not only increased costs in day-to-day operations but gave us nearly $7 million for priority educational programs our students want in health care programs such as nursing and allied health occupations, engineering, construction management and fisheries. It’s only the fourth time in 20 years we’ve received program money, above and beyond fixed costs….She hasn’t given us everything we’ve asked for, but our highest priority programs in the operating budget were covered, and nearly $50 million for deferred maintenance and other funding in the capital budget were funded. Our capital budget was $107 million from the state — one of the largest capital budgets the university has ever received.”

http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/02/palin

... still checking it out. I see stuff about working across Party lines to reform Alaska government. I also see references to her reducing Alaska's large earmark requests.

[srellim234]

3% population growth per year doesn't justify 17% growth per year in government operating budget. Plus, the legislature decided she was 6% high, reducing it to 11%.

As I've said previously, maybe she is legit and the real deal. I would like to see a better track record before I would be prepared to come to that conclusion. So far I see bigger government, windfall profit taxes and wealth redistribution over the last year for her.

[96Qowner]

Jus' providing info here ...

The FY2009 Operating Budget Bill totals $11.1 billion and includes funding for public education, the university system, public health and safety, transportation and resource development. In signing the bill, the Governor committed to saving at least $20 million in state agencies' operating budgets.

http://www.sitnews.us/0508news....html

I appears that since royalties on oil are up dramatically, Palin has been trimming operating costs and investing in infrastructure - the sort of thing that is very smart when faced with a sudden windfall. My State, North Dakota, is faced with an extra Billion bucks because of the huge increase in oil royalties. It will be used to reduce individual property taxes and for investment into education and into transmission lines for wind energy development. One could argue that that's a gift to energy companies, I suppose.

[AZhitman]

3% population growth per year doesn't justify 17% growth per year in government operating budget.

It does if there was a long history of no increases from year to year, placing the state in a position of operating from a shortfall each subsequent year (like here in AZ).

All is not always as it seems.

[Marenta]

3% population growth per year doesn't justify 17% growth per year in government operating budget.

It does if there was a long history of no increases from year to year, placing the state in a position of operating from a shortfall each subsequent year (like here in AZ).

All is not always as it seems.

I have to agree. All through the 70s and 80s, they weren't giving the military any real raises for the rise in inflation, so when Bush Sr. took office the military got a 20% something increase one year to make up for all the years they hadn't been getting a pay raise along with inflation.

These things take time to trickle down, and catch up in the system.

[srellim234]

I'm having difficulty locating the budget statistics for Alaska that could either prove or disprove that Alaska's operating expenses didn't keep up under previous administrations, creating such a shortfall. For whatever reason I'm not finding the figures, either % or actual dollars. Does anybody have them?

I'm open to the fact that if previous budgets didn't keep up and the state was truly handicapped along those lines an increase is justified. I find it hard to believe that government didn't keep up, though, since Palin ran on a reducing government and corruption platform.

Anyone have the figures for the years through the 1990s and 2000s before 2006?

[srellim234]

Best I can find is this research paper from the University of Alaska Anchorage.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cac...tl=us

From 1990 to 2002 the budget increased from $4.1 billion to $7.4 billion, faster than population growth.

48% of the increased spending went to operating costs, 34% to capital costs and 18% to Permanent Fund dividents and inflation protection.

Taking inflation and population growth into account, per capita spending from state sources dropped by about 10% per resident, but real per capita spending from federal funds jumped 150%.

It would appear that AZ and Marenta's argument that Palin was making up for past lagging in spending is not true unless something drastic happened between 2002 and 2006. Anybody find the 2002-2006 growth figures yet?

[AZhitman]

I'm not arguing that, just throwing it outthere as a possibility.

Having worked on portions of the state budget for AZ for the past several years, it just immediately came to mind as a distinct possibility.

The other possibility is that the state was underfunded all along, and catch-up was needed. I'm sure AK possesses its own share of characteristics that make for unique and unusual budgetary concerns.

[Soravia]

Those polls don't matter until people KNOW Sarah Palin. You can't ask a ricer what he thinks about the latest Aston Martin.