Greg Sargent got it wrong on NBC/WSJ poll: endorsements from politicians are toxic and yes Sarah Palin is a politician

By Conservative Generation for Left Coast Rebel

Why would one even ask if a Sarah Palin endorsement is bad or good? Personally, I don't think it is a very relevant question, but hey, since the NBC/WSJ asked it, of course the media is going to fuss over it.

Greg Sargent is the clown of the day:

Commentators keep telling us how influential Sarah Palin's endorsements are, and even if the whole "mama grizzly" meme is clearly overstated, there's no quibbling with the fact that Palin has pull among GOP primary voters.

But the more interesting point to be made about Palin is how toxic she's become among the broader electorate. In fact, buried in the internals of the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is an amusing number: A majority see a Palin endorsement as a clear negative.

Polling is fun and Greg may have a good point, but here are a few things Greg left out of his article:

  • Obama is toxic – 36 Positive, 43 Negative

  • Tea Party endorsement is as good as Obama, but at least far fewer have an opinion – 31 Positive, 38 Negative

  • Republicans are toxic – 30 Positive, 42 Negative

  • Democrats are toxic – 35 Positive, 44 Negative

Perhaps, but could the real trend simply be that endorsements from politicians are toxic? After all, one of the big finds in all the polls is the anti-incumbent sentiment? NBC/WSJ found 57% wanted to elect a new person for office to 35% wanted to vote for the incumbent.

No Greg, the real interesting meme in the poll was in the policy questions. Readers, can you guess what it is?

  • Supports cutting federal spending – 69 Positive, 23 Negative – looks like Paul Krugman is losing the argument

  • Favors Arizona immigration law – 45 Positive, 38 Negative

  • Supports repealing health care – 47 Positive, 40 Negative

  • Voted for Obama's stimulus package – 39 Possitive, 46 Negative

  • Voted for Health Care – 39 Possitive, 50 Negative

Though all the numbers are interesting, the answer to my question about "the big finding" is that despite the widespread concern from the public about the economy, they see the health care bill as a bigger negative for a supporting candidate than the failed Obama stimulus.

That is the real news.

Via Memeorandum


  1. One set of data I would like to see -- national approval/disapproval numbers on Ronald Reagan in the 1977-79 period.

    It'd help me decide whether to support Palin in a presidential bid.

  2. My question would have been, could she have done any worse than Obama?


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.