Politico released a survey this morning that included an oversample of 227 “DC Elites.”  This gives us a unique ability to see how the elites stack up against the American public (represented by 1,011 adults - geographically and demographically representative of the nation at large).

First, let’s examine the demographics of both populations to give perspective to the results:

Gender
General Population (GP): 48% Male - 52% Female
Washington DC Elites (DCE): 40% Male - 60% Female

Age
GP:
18-34:  34%
35-54:  41%
55-74:  25%
DCE:
18-34:  29%
35-54:  38%
55-74:  33%

Income
GP:
<$35,000:  41%
$35,000-$74,999:  40%
$75,000-$149,999:  16%
$150,000+:  3%
DCE:
<$35,000:  0%
$35,000-$74,999:  1%
$75,000-$149,999:  54%
$150,000+:  45%

Ethnicity
GP:
White:  74%
Black/AA:  12%
Asian:  4%
Hispanic:  6%
Native American:  <1%
DCE:
White:  85%
Black/AA:  1%
Asian:  6%
Hispanic:  0%
Native American:  0%

Party Identification
GP:
Strong Dem: 14%
Lean Dem: 21%
Independent: 23%
Lean GOP: 18%
Strong GOP: 14%
DCE:
Strong Dem: 26%
Lean Dem: 25%
Independent: 19%
Lean GOP: 17%
Strong GOP:  9%

Overall, the DC Elite are older, richer, whiter and more Democratic than the general population.  The elite also happen to be more female.

Now, let’s examine the opinions of both groups…

Direction of the Country?
Right Direction: 27% GP - 49% DCE
Wrong Track:  61% GP - 45% DCE

Direction of Economy?
Right Direction: 24% GP - 44% DCE
Wrong Track:  65% GP - 46% DCE

How has the economic downturn affected you?
More than most Americans: 27% GP - 6% DCE
Less then most Americans: 24% GP - 74% DCE
About the same as others:  47% GP - 20% DCE

Do you think the political system in DC is broken?
Yes, Broken:  72% GP - 64% DCE
No, not Broken:  15% GP - 31% DCE

Most Important Issue Facing Country?
Economy/Jobs:  87% GP - 86% DCE
Education:  67% GP - 59% DCE
Healthcare:  65% GP - 64% DCE

How Favorable are you of…
Barack Obama:  25% GP - 36% DCE
Sarah Palin:  14% GP - 3% DCE
Nancy Pelosi:  5% GP - 12% DCE
John Boehner:  4% GP - 1% DCE
Harry Reid:  3% GP - 5% DCE

If election were held today for Congress, would you vote…
Democratic Candidate:  32% GP - 53% DCE
Republican Candidate:  31% GP - 26% DCE

Clearly, the DC Elites are very Democratic leaning in regards to their view of the economy, direction of the country and even showing partiality to Democratic leaders in Washington over their Republican counterparts.  The bottomline is that the DC Elite represent the party in power.  And, for the moment, that party is the Democrats.  Aside from being heavy with female respondents, I see no problem with the oversample’s representative nature.

While Elites are “a world apart,” according to the Politico, they are easily able to identify top issues shared by the general population.  However, the Elites are much more optimistic about the state of the economy primarily because they have been among the least affected.

It is remarkable to see that a majority of Elites agree with the general population that “the political system in DC is broken.”

The SRLC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll demonstrates that organization matters. Both Romney and Paul were strongly prepared for the conference, buying tickets for supporters, hosting events, and printing literature, posters and stickers.

Unlike Romney, Palin spoke at the conference to a packed house. She clearly excited attendees, but Palin’s straw poll performance suffered significantly due to a lack of organization. Palin is also the only major contender who has parted way with most of her DC-based political consultants – the people who know how to move the numbers, even in a straw poll.

The final results gave Romney the win by a vote, but a closer look at the data shows Romney much stronger than a single-ballot win.  You can see the full results with crosstabulations here (pdf).

Paul’s support was largely artificial and unrepresentative

• While Romney and Paul earned nearly identical support, Paul places dead-last as attendees’ second choice indicating that the votes that Ron Paul received were almost exclusively from people his organization bused in for the event.
• Evangelicals for Mitt also paid for tickets for nearly 200 people, but performed much better on the second choice ballot (14% to Paul’s 8%), earning a similar distribution to that of Palin and Gingrich. This means that Romney earned support from attendees not officially connected to his organization.
• The majority of Paul’s ballot support is primarily young men ages 35 or younger, as the Texas Congressman earns only token support among older attendees. This is another key data-point that show Paul’s inability to earn support from attendees that are representative of the primary electorate at-large.

Gingrich, Palin and Romney receive support from McCain voters

• Reiterating the point that Paul’s support is isolated and unrepresentative, those supporting McCain in 2008 supported Gingrich, Palin and Romney similarly.

Romney unable to carry his full support base

• Despite making a strong showing, Romney only earns the support of 54% of attendees who supported him in 2008.
• Paul carries an enormous 96% of those who supported him 2008.

Huckabee voters desert him, choosing Palin and Newt

• Huckabee only earns 20% of the votes from people supporting him 2008. But, he also didn’t have an organization lobbying for votes.

Palin and Newt earn votes from supporters of virtually all the 2008 candidates

• Palin and Gingrich earn similar support from nearly the full spectrum of supporters of 2008 candidates, while Romney draws strength from his original supporters in addition to McCain and Giuliani voters.

Gingrich is the top second choice of Palin and Romney supporters

• Newt bridges the gap between the first and third place positions in the straw poll as both Palin and Romney voters choose Gingrich as their top second choice.

Reinforcing the bridge theory, Gingrich voters break equally for Palin and Romney as their second choice.

WRS is proud to be the pollster for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and the tabulator for the 2012 Straw Poll.

Methodology: Only paid, credentialed attendees to the 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference were permitted to cast a ballot in the straw poll. The survey questionnaire includes six questions: first choice for 2012 Presidential primary, second choice for primary, resident state, age, and who the respondent supported in the 2008 primary.

The following are the topline results. A more detailed analysis of the data will be available in the following days on the WRS blog.

Initial Choice
(If the primary election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?)
Newt Gingrich 18% (321)
Mike Huckabee 4% (80)
Gary Johnson 1% (3)
Sarah Palin 18% (330)
Ron Paul 24% (438)
Tim Pawlenty 3% (54)
Mike Pence 3% (58)
Mitt Romney 24% (439)
Rick Santorum 2% (41)

Second Choice
(Who would be your second choice in the Republican Primary Election for president?)
Newt Gingrich 20% (339)
Mike Huckabee 11% (178)
Gary Johnson 6% (104)
Sarah Palin 20% (332)
Ron Paul 6% (98)
Tim Pawlenty 7% (114)
Mike Pence 8% (141)
Mitt Romney 14% (242)
Rick Santorum 7% (125)

About WRS
Since 1998, WRS has been a leading provider of political polling for campaigns from Mayor and City Council to Governor and U.S. Senate in 47 states and several foreign countries. In 2007-2008 alone, WRS conducted polling in 252 races for campaigns, caucuses and independent expenditures efforts, making WRS one of the largest Republican pollsters in the US.

WRS’ corporate research arm has provided market research to more than 100 of the Fortune 500 and to hundreds of small and medium businesses nationwide.

New data released by the Washington Post shows that Sarah Palin’s image is woefully polarizing:

Q: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Overall:  37 fav/55 unfav
Democrats:  15 fav/75 unfav
Republicans:  66 fav/30 unfav
Independents:  38 fav/55 unfav

The problem is that even if Sarah made it past the primary, her strongly inverted image among Independents would prevent her from even being competitive.

However, her image has remained largely unchanged from their February survey:

“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?�
2/4-8/10            37%Fav      55%Unfav     8%Unsure
11/12-15/09      43%Fav      52%Unfav     5%Unsure
7/15-18/09        40%Fav      53%Unfav     7%Unsure
9/27-29/08        51%Fav      40%Unfav     9%Unsure

When Sarah Palin resigned from being Alaska’s Governor, we opined that she was not yet dead politically.

However, in the seven months since announcing her resignation she has not been able to improve her image nationally:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2010. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5:

“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?”
2/4-8/10            37%Fav      55%Unfav     8%Unsure
11/12-15/09      43%Fav      52%Unfav     5%Unsure
7/15-18/09        40%Fav      53%Unfav     7%Unsure
9/27-29/08        51%Fav      40%Unfav     9%Unsure

In fact, her image is so damaged that a majority of her own party find her not qualified to serve as President:

“Regardless of whether or not you’d vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?”

26% - Qualified
71% - Not
4% - Unsure

Democrats 6% Qualified   91% Not    3% Unsure
Independents   29%     67%      4%
Republicans      46%     52%      2%

Now, conservative columnist George Will begins to publicly nail the coffin lid shut with this piece:

Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 18, 2010; A17

The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska’s governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.

Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans — including 52 percent of Republicans — think she is not qualified to be president.

This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America’s political circus, she showed grit.

She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation — loathing largely born of snobbery — that she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences.

America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.

After William Jennings Bryan’s defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, “I’m beginning to think those fellows don’t want me in there.” In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon — a billionaire populist — won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter — peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that — somewhat tapped America’s durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.

In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist’s trifecta — a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. Actually, he had three such issues — backlash against the civil rights revolution, social disintegration (urban riots, rising crime) and resentment of the progressive projects of Great Society social engineers (e.g., forced busing of other people’s children).

Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today’s saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.

While Palin may not be politically “dead,” her hopes of being viewed as a viable candidate for President are quickly fading away as she engages on extremely divisive issues and continues to makes outlandish statements.  She will certainly continue to be seen as a leader to some in the Republican party, but those desiring to see the Republicans put up a competitive opponent to Obama in 2012 can sleep a little better knowing that Palin’s chances are slipping away.

The national media has been abuzz for weeks now dissecting excerpts from Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue.  Naturally the elitists in the media have used the opportunity to relentlessly pick on the former Governor, as they did during the 2008 Presidential campaign.  If sales are any indicator as to how big-a-following she has, it’s…uh….huge. 

In the first week of release, Palin’s book sales have topped 700,000.  Let’s compare that to now-President Obama’s notable book, The Audacity of Hope: 182,000 book sales in the first three weeks.  Needless to say, Palin has blown away the President.  Take in to account that the NY Times, Oprah Winfrey and the Today Show treated Obama’s book to the publicity level George Lucas receives during a Star Wars motion picture release, and Palin’s sales are that much more impressive.

To state the obvious, Palin is a national force to be reckoned with.  Even with the hatchet-job those in the national media and ex-McCain officials have done to bring her down, she remains the most popular guest at Republican rallies and fundraisers.  Even the most ardent retractors of Palin within the GOP will admit that no one can draw a crowd the way she can.

While the former Vice Presidential candidate still has a lot of work to do in convincing general election voters that she is the real deal, Sarah Palin is clearly a force in Republican political circles.  The jaw-dropping sales indicate that many independent conservatives are shunning the popular press’ portrayal of the former Alaska Governor and are willing to look deeper at her as a possible national figure in which to rally around.  Those in the Republican Party that discount her or take her lightly will be making a big mistake

Since my appearance on MSNBC regarding Sarah Palin has generated so much conversation, I felt it might be a good idea to expand upon the points I made while debating the commentators.  I realize my comments fly in the face of conventional wisdom and are contrary to the analysis given by most Republican consultants. 

That understood, I think there are three good reasons that the Palin resignation could (key word: could) be a good move for her on a long term basis:

1) The money angle (as Charlie Cook covered this week).

1. The Palin’s aren’t wealthy. They haven’t reached the point that they don’t have to work as Mitt Romney can.
2. If she’s going to be a full-time campaigner for two years starting in 2010 she can’t do it by earning a Governor’s salary from now until the end of her term.
3. She needs the money she’ll earn giving speeches and writing a book to support her family while she runs for President.
4. In a lot of ways the media, safe in their elite and very well-paid lives, is missing the basic blue-collar story here.

 2) The campaign for the GOP nomination has already started.

1. The two other major known contenders-Romney and Huckabee-are already on the road doing GOP events around the country and building a constituency.
2. Palin can’t compete with that if she has to be in Juneau and run a state.
3. It’s a sad reality of the modern political campaign but your choices if you want to run for President now seem to be quitting your job or being a U.S. Senator who isn’t up for re-election.

 3) Sarah Palin needs to be Sarah Palin.

1. The Governor knows her most powerful political asset is her ability to personally connect with voters.
2. Conversely, her most formidable political liability is the hatred that the media and many DC political elites seem to have for her.
3. Right now, hanging out in Juneau, all of the information voters receive about her is mediated by either the press or political elites (of both parties I might add).
4. By resigning now she gets back out on the road and can reminds voters why they liked her so much the last time she was able to talk to them directly.

Finally, it’s clear from Tuesday’s Gallup results that American voters don’t think Governor Palin is dead politically:

1. Among Republicans more than seven in ten (72%) said they were at least somewhat likely to vote for her if she were a candidate in the 2012 election.
2. Following her resignation; more than 2/3 of Republicans (67%) say they believe Sarah Palin should be a major political figure.
3. Seven in ten voters say her resignation has no affect on their opinion of her (remarkable considering the negative media coverage)
4. 53% of voters in Gallup survey said that the news media coverage of Palin had been unfairly negative.

Recent survey research shows that Americans believe that while women have the better traits to be leaders, men are better political leaders.

Why is this? 

What the national poll shows is that women are viewed as being more compassionate, work out compromises better and keeping government honest.  But it also shows that many people believe men are better at handling national security issues and crime.

Twenty one percent of Americans blieve men mak better political leaders while only six percent say women do.  Sixty nine percent say it does not matter.

Another interesting number is that both men and women polled in the survey overwhelmingly say that women are more honest and intelligent than men in concern to traits that are important to them when choosing a leader.  However men are overwhelmingly seen as more decisive in their decision making process.

The results of this survey are very interesting and may explain some of the reasons Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Primary to Barack Obama.  While the economy is seen as the most important issue among Americans, people are still fearful of more terrorist attacks, and while women are viewed as having better traits to lead among Americans, according to the survey they still have a ways to go on national security issues.

National security will once again play a major role in the upcoming Presidential race.  It will be interesting to see America’s response to Sarah Palin in the coming weeks.  Will America continue its “good ole boys club” of electing only men to high office, or is 2008 the year America makes history and puts a woman in high, elected office for the first time.

Time will tell. 

Chris Wilson on FoxNews’ Studio B

Part I

Part II