|
That's now. Remember, the main purpose for polling in cases lie this is for the propaganda machine to gauge the success of their campaigns.
These polls far in advance of the event always give me flashbacks to the first Gulf War. The public opposed starting it by 80%. Three weeks later, after a media propaganda barrage, 80% favored the war. A lot of good antiwar Dems took bad hits in that one. As I wrote this, I realized that this was no doubt a big factor in the Dems supporting GWII.
In many ways, Sarah is an ideal candidate. She has no real agenda, is probably more interested in the fancy parties with international bigshots, redecorating the White House & getting new china than in any actual governing activities. She will happily turn that hard stuff over to her Chief of Staff (you don't know him yet; he's a hotshot analyst at the Heritage Foundation right now) or whoever.
It would be fairly easy to run Sarah against almost any Dem. If Bush could "win" debates against Al Gore, she can do just as well. Maybe they would have to vet the questions beforehand, like they did with Ahhhhnold, but that's a minor problem. Anyway, the winner is whoever the pundits declare to be the winer. Between teabaggers, know-nothing independents all charged up by the boob with the boobs, the gun crowd, and Diebold, she should have little trouble winning. And she would subsequently have no trouble governing, because she would be nothing but a shill for the Corporatocracy.
|