Is there anyway that Sarah Palin isn't the Republican nominee in 2012?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 15:05


If Sarah Palin runs for President, then she will win the Republican nomination.  The rally she is holding today with Michelle Bachmann is amazing, and Obama-like, in it's size:

More than 10,000 Republican faithful are expected to crowd into the Minneapolis Convention Center on Wednesday when Sarah Palin joins Rep. Michele Bachmann at a fundraiser and rally for Bachmann's re-election bid and the Minnesota state Republican Party.

Anyone who can draw 10,000 people to a rally in Minnesota--in early 2010, no less-- is formidable.  
In the specific case of Sarah Palin, it makes her virtually unstoppable.

National polling for the Republican nomination has consistently shown Palin in a roughly three-way tie  with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.  However:

  1. Huckabee is unlikely to run, and his evangelical / born again base (virtually all Huckabee voters in 2008 were evangelicals) is a lot closer to Sarah Palin than they are to Mitt Romney.  So, Palin will likely start ahead in national polls among declared candidates.

  2. Romney's strength in 2008 was in caucuses, which are dominated by dedicated activists. Of the 11 states that Romney won in 2008, three were "home" states (MA, where he was Governor; MI where his father was Governor; and UT for religion), and the other eight were all caucuses.  However, Romney isn't going to win many caucuses if he is facing a candidate who can draw 10,000 people to a rally in early 2010, not to mention what is likely a tarnished reputation among Republican activists after the health care fight.

  3. Palin's grassroots strength will provide her with all the funding she needs, and also goes a long way to pre-empting any possible insurgent candidacy against her.  This will especially be the case if Ron Paul runs again, since Paul can't win the nomination but would soak up pretty much all of the remaining grassroots energy on the Republican side.

  4. Say what you will about Palin's ability as a campaigner, but if gaffes were going to make her unpopular among Republicans, it would have happened already.
If Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012, I have a difficult time imagining someone else winning the Republican nomination.  While this is pretty good news for Democrats, as Palin polls worse against Obama than almost any other Republican (see also PPP polling), it is also pretty scary.  A continually weak economy--which is very possible--could actually make her President less than three years from now.
Chris Bowers :: Is there anyway that Sarah Palin isn't the Republican nominee in 2012?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Don't forget about the power of (4.00 / 5)
Wall Street-corporate cash. For all of Obama's crowd-generating abilities, he wouldn't have been president without Wall Street cash. Wall Street won't throw its lot in with someone closely linked to teabaggers.

My money's on John Thune.  


... (4.00 / 1)
Wall street was not the top donor industry to Obama in 2008, They were #5 after  Lawyers, Education, Retired and misc business.

[ Parent ]
only #5 (4.00 / 1)
no influence whatsoever!

[ Parent ]
there's a huge gap between (4.00 / 1)
'no influence whatsoever' and 'determines the election'

[ Parent ]
Interesting (4.00 / 4)
And irrelevant. Job titles? Who cares? I wonder how many of those "lawyers" worked on Wall Street:

Financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows...

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

And what about during the primary?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) on their home turf in the first quarter, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

The Illinois senator raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Giuliani collected $473,442, and Clinton got $447,625. The figures are based on employers listed by the donors; in some cases, names are incomplete or missing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

(Clinton would eventually gain slightly more money from Wall Street than Obama.)



[ Parent ]
That I find (4.00 / 1)
a little hard to understand.

What has Wall Street have to fear from Palin, except lower taxes and less regulation?


[ Parent ]
break out those (4.00 / 3)
Tina Fey glasses.

The knives haven't come out on the Republican side (4.00 / 3)
Keep in mind that the Republican primary might be quite bloody. While Romney might be attacked for Romneycare, Palin will surely be attacked by everyone in the party with any sort of interest in seeing her lose. This includes not only her opponents, but also anyone with money in the party who doesn't want to see the party throw away a possible win by nominating an unelectable candidate.  

My question is, does attacking (4.00 / 8)
Palin actually hurt her? Or just hurt the attacker, if conservative? I mean, she's a professional victim. I think we can attack her. But a Republican? I'm not sure.

[ Parent ]
right (4.00 / 2)
This is one key reason John McCain won the Republican primary despite the fact no one in the Republican party loved him. Because it was verboten to attack war hero* and former POW John McCain. Especially when it seemed like his campaign was floundering, his opponents couldn't stop praising him. "John is right, John is right, John is right." I can hear it now: "Sarah is right, Sarah is right, Sarah is right."

Boy, I hope this happens.**

* He could fly a plane and drop bombs at least some of the time.

** I said that about Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Republican primaries too.


[ Parent ]
That first asterisk (4.00 / 2)
McCain chose to stay in that POW camp because they wouldn't also free those of lower rank.  He was tortured so bad that he can't lift his arms.  He has turned into a demented right-wing idiot in later life, but we shouldn't forget that he did that.


--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
I'm not trying to get on your case, sorry if I came across that way. I just felt the need to point that out, that he did that amazing thing.

Also I remember that a lot of people thought that Reagan would be easy to beat.  But that conservative machine we all understand today was starting up, and Carter (and government and democracy) didn't know what hit him.  So I think Palin, with the full right-wing chorus behind her, would be very, very hard to beat.  

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
I'm pretty bad at picking the weakest Republican candidate. Thought voters wouldn't go for an actor, thought Bush41 had no chance, thought Bush43 was a mental lightweight who coasted on Daddy's name and people would eventually see that. Well, they did, but not after electing (well sort of) twice.

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
i asterisked the "war hero" part, not the "POW" part. From what I've read (and by his own admission) his capabilities as a soldier/pilot were not too impressive. I believe he crashed a couple of times before his final crash.

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
if they do attack her and you are right, then its still a win.  The more Indies know about her the more they dislike her.   All her old stupidities will come out.  This woman could only get elected Governor in 2-3 states... the fact she quit will not site well.

[ Parent ]
Does Palin WANT To Be President? (4.00 / 1)
It's actually hard work. I know she'd be like a deluxe version of Bush II, and let her "advisers" tell her what to do. But, Bush was a genius compared with Palin and there's a lot easier time and more money in being a media personality than in the hard work of running for office. She's kind of like Fred Thompson in that respect: lazy.  

Bush didn't quit his governorship in the middle of his first term to go become a TV personality. And Bush was a stealth candidate who slipped past the radars of millions of voters who were bamboozled by the "compassionate conservative" crap the media kept spinning, and all the beltway nonsense about how Bush "reached across the aisle to work with Democrats" in the Texas legislature.

No matter how insanely stupid that was, it was THE media theme.

But, the nation has been introduced to Palin and right now people either love her or hate her and the majority can't stand her. She would generate TOTAL commitment and energy from Democrats to defeat her. Remember how hard it is to revise a first impression of someone?

Obama is a sitting President, which even in BAD economic times is a huge advantage. It's just much easier to imagine what you've got than to imagine an alternative. That's why so few incumbents lose.

Basically, the ONLY incumbents who lose are those who not only suffer bad economic times, but manage to convince voters that they don't know and don't care about their plight.

(Think Bush I showing amazement over the supermarket checkout scanner and fumbling to answer questions during the debate about the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread). But, Obama doesn't come across as "out of touch" with the lives of ordinary Americans.

And, unlike Jimmy Carter he doesn't appear to be preachy and judgmental and out of touch with Americans' feelings (generally the media image of Al Gore too).

It certainly could be closer than we would expect, but in reality unless America really wants to give up totally and forever on the dream we're not going to elect Sarah Palin.  


[ Parent ]
National Polling is Irrelevent (4.00 / 2)
in the nomination fight, and the ability to draw a crowd is surely a good sign, but not dispositive.

The GOP nomination fight has tended to favor establishment candidates over insurgents.  In fact, the only candidate who ran against the GOP establishment and was successful  was Reagan. It may well be that the environment in 2012 is favorable to an insurgent, but we are from knowing that today.  

I wouldn't for a second dismiss Palin, and her crowds are somewhat similar to those Obama drew in 2007.

But in New Hampshire one of the key hurdles candidates must overcome is proving they are electable.  In Palin's case, that hurdle may be be insurmountable.  


She doesn't get any 'establishment' points (0.00 / 0)
for being the previous VP nominee?

[ Parent ]
Not many (4.00 / 1)
The only losing VP candidate to be elected President was FDR and there was IIRC a 12 year gap during which he reinvented himself and was elected Governor of NY.  Going over Republican candidates in my head, the only nominee to have run and lost for VP was Bob Dole.  That's going back over 150 years to 1856.

Republicans do give lots of to candidates who had run previously (McCain, Dole, Bush I, Reagan, Nixon, Dewey).


[ Parent ]
Well, but it's not 'elected,' we're talking (0.00 / 0)
about, just 'nominated.'  

[ Parent ]
Walter Mondale (4.00 / 1)
was technically the losing VP candidate in 1980, and was nominated for President in 1984.

[ Parent ]
I doubt it. (4.00 / 3)
Whatever else you can say about her, she did not play by the GOP establishment's rules after she was chosen, and ended up being perceived as difficult, highly resistant to outside advice, and a net negative for the ticket. Establishment figures are happy to pal around with her now, while the stakes are low and the reflected adoration from the teabag crowd is bright. Once the primaries begin in earnest, though, they will abandon her.

Even so, I think she could win the nomination. I agree that anti-establishment candidates generally do badly in Republican primaries, but the party is in a very weird place right now, and all bets are off.


[ Parent ]
Establishment is very unpopular in the GOP right now (4.00 / 1)
and at the end of the day there's a lot more ordinary voters, and even teabaggers, than establishment.

[ Parent ]
it is my sense (4.00 / 2)
that the "GOP Establishment" regards her with trepidation.  You are right to question this accumption, though.  


[ Parent ]
You mean (4.00 / 1)
"any way" not "anyway" in the headline.

Is this a bad thing? (4.00 / 1)
It will be very hard for folks to make the case that Obama and Palin are basically the same candidate, right?

Should play right into Obama's strengths.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


If it means Obama (4.00 / 11)
can continue to take his base for granted without suffering any consequences, yeah, it's a bad thing. Candidate Palin is a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for Obama.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Isn't that gonna be the case for any GOPper opponent? (4.00 / 1)
Blaming such actions on Sarah Palin is placing blame on the wrong politician.

I cannot remember a national election where the Democrats have not taken the "base" for granted.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.00 / 2)
But not like Palin.  "I hate her" will be a powerful motivation for disaffected Dems.  People hate her a LOT.

[ Parent ]
This is actually my fear (4.00 / 2)
Palin is like a circus freak (politically, not literally) and thus it allows Democrats to divert voters' attention to her rather than their own failures.

We can blame our own human tendency to go bananas for sensationalism (one of the worst traits of human nature, IMO).  To me Palin isn't really any worse than any other standard-issue conservative.  I don't know why everyone goes nuts over her and it's really irritating because it distracts people from much more important issues.


[ Parent ]
I know I've been seriously (4.00 / 2)
thinking about leaving the top part of the ballot blank in 2012. I would still vote D down ticket, because it makes a huge difference in my daily life who is sheriff, who is on the school board. But if it's Obama versus a generic Republican? I'm not so sure.

Sarah Palin is another story altogether, she scares the shit out of me.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I doubt Palin will be nominated (4.00 / 1)
Don't think the GOP is ready to "go rogue".

However, long term, if the nation survives - a Palin Presidency following the 2 Bush/Cheney GOP turns at the WH might just put the final nail in the GOPper coffin. Of course, the two party tyranny will see to it that the GOP never actually dies.

As interesting as a Palin campaign might be, a Palin administration would be like improve night at the WH.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
A Palin presidency woudl be too disastrous (4.00 / 3)
what you are proposing is, if a patient has a bad bacterial infection like TB, to skip the antibiotics, and go to something like harsh chemo.  Yes, it may work, but the cure is so harsh and bad that it might not even be worth it.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't "proposing" anything, although I see now it reads that way. Just thinking out loud.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Then please vote on my behalf (4.00 / 3)
We are in the midst of a horrible tragedy here in West Virginia at the Montcoal mine.

I take solace in knowing that Hilda Solis is in charge at Labor plus those in charge at the Mine Safety and Health Agency are going to hold the mine operators accountable if this was a preventable tragedy.

That's just one example of where it makes a huge difference which party is in charge of the administration of our government. I beg you, if you believe that government should works for the people, please vote for a Democrat for President.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
That mine had 48 citations in 2009 (4.00 / 2)
http://blog.sunlightfoundation...

That was on Obama's watch.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
still dealing with Bush rules (4.00 / 1)
We'll all be hearing much more about the mining regs this year... quoting from your link, this is part of the problem:

Upper Big Branch was also cited for 202 violations that were considered "significant and substantial." Seventy-six percent of those have either been contested or Massey Energy is delinquent in paying them.

It takes a while to undo 8 years of dismantled regulatory structures. From what I understand, by Bush rules until a violation is "closed" it doesn't count towards a mine being considered unsafe to operate. It seems that Massey's been gaming the system.

I'm not saying that the Obama administration is perfect--far from it. I disagree with a whole lot of what they've done and will continue to be vocal in my disagreements. What I'm saying is, it makes a big difference who is in the White House and our country is much better off with the party that believes government can work running the government.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
But I'm not sure the Party of (4.00 / 3)
Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel and yes, Barack Obama, really is "the party that believes government can work." It doesn't fit with their actions.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Obama, New Democrats et al. are "the party that believes government can work... (4.00 / 2)
...as long as the private sector and big corporations who already run the show get a piece of the action!  Actually, not just a piece, the whole damn pie! (The little people can lick the crumbs.) God forbid we actually have government acting directly on behalf of the people, as those dirty liberals want, because that sounds too much like 'socialism', and we can't have that because the people who want to destroy my Presidency and run me out of town hate that, and we have to please them so we can look all 'reasonable' and 'fair-minded', as the President wrote about in his best-selling manifesto entitled The Audacity of Taking Bullshit Meaningless Positions So I Can Get a Cool Bipartisan Image."

No but really, there's a big and very important difference between New Democrats and "real" liberals, who are both pro-government but in different ways, as this must-read explains.


[ Parent ]
re: the r word (4.00 / 2)
the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. ... To be clear, this is not the same as the conservative "privatization" strategy, which simply devolves public responsibilities to private entities without much in the way of regulation.

I'm laughing my ass off when I see people thinking there will be regulation strong enough "to achieve progressive policy results."

damn, are these guys for real?

the ahip cartel wants to make money, and granny can go to hell.

ps. of course that's not directed at you, but the guy at the link


[ Parent ]
Well in all fairness it shouldn't be directed at him (Ed Kilgore) either (0.00 / 0)
since he's just reporting what he sees, and isn't necessarily promoting it himself.

New Democrats are responsible for their own delusions.


[ Parent ]
ok, you're right (0.00 / 0)
I didn't catch that he's only reporting their delusions!

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 3)
Yeah, and Al Gore was the same guy as George Bush.    That sort of mindset got us into the Bush years to begin with.No way Indies make that mistake again.    There isn't a credible Left or center left candidate to run against Obama.   Palin is relection and that's a good thing.

[ Parent ]
Obama (4.00 / 1)
is no Al Gore.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
he's left of Gore (4.00 / 2)
Odd how everyone writes off his entire record in favor of some rhetoric.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
It is his record I'm talking about. (4.00 / 2)
FISA, TARP, DADT, two imperial wars and now the biggest rollback to reproductive rights in a generation -- what presidency have you been watching?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
FISA, TARP, DADT, two imperial wars and now the biggest rollback to reproductive rights in a generation -- what presidency have you been watching?

i guess you missed the part about Bush leaving office? Yeah the President who instituted FISA, TARP, two imperial wars and the biggest rollback to reprodcutive rights in a generation (I'm guessing you mean late term abortion) left office more than a year ago.  


[ Parent ]
No, my point was (4.00 / 2)
Obama is FOR all of these things. Actions speak louder than words. And the biggest rollback of reproductive rights was just passed under the guise of "healthcare reform."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Oh I see (4.00 / 1)
an executive order reiterating already existing law is "the biggest rollback of reproductive rights in a generation"

And you wonder why people treat you guys like you're crazy?  


[ Parent ]
No, a law (4.00 / 1)
that will see to it that abortions will no longer be covered by insurance is the biggest rollback.

Sooner or later you have to learn the rule -- "watch their hands, not their eyes." What Obama says and what he does are two different things. Just ask the poor bastards in Guantanomo Bay.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
You are aware (0.00 / 0)
that the Stupak Amendment did not become law, right?

What Obama says and what he does are two different things. Just ask the poor bastards in Guantanomo Bay.

Those poor bastards at Gitmo are still at Gitmo because of opposition from people like Russ Feingold, not for Obama breaking promises, or did you forget about the Senate overwhelmingly rejecting funding to close it?



[ Parent ]
re: existing law (0.00 / 0)
an executive order reiterating already existing law

no, it's not just "reiterating already existing law"

it gives "new protections" to providers and facilities that are even unwilling to refer women (provide coverage) somewhere else. from the text of obama's order:

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.


[ Parent ]
Al Gore would've unilaterally (4.00 / 1)
opened up our coastline to drilling? Really?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Once gas prices hit $4 (0.00 / 0)
yeah, I absolutely think he would have...with stipulations.  

[ Parent ]
Obama sold us out on drilling (0.00 / 0)
here and now, with gas under $3 a gallon. This is the man who is "to the left of Al Gore?" I don't think so.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Obama is absolutely to the left of Gore (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand how anyone could dispute that. Even Nader agreed with that. Maybe not Gore post-2001, but he is absolutely the left of the president Gore campaigned to be.

[ Parent ]
Obama is absolutely to the left of Gore (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand how anyone could dispute that. Even Nader agreed with that. Maybe not Gore post-2001, but he is absolutely the left of the president Gore campaigned to be.

[ Parent ]
So what if it gave us Bush instead of Gore (0.00 / 0)
Gore would have likely gotten us into war too!  He was a Lieberdem!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
You have no evidence of this at all (0.00 / 0)
it's still really damn unclear why Iraq happened at all.  

[ Parent ]
picked Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
and  he is a dlcer.   They all voted for the war and refuse to end it now that they are in control.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
This is arguable (0.00 / 0)
On one hand, Gore did come out against the war; I don't know if he did before or during the war, but he was against it by his September 2003 (?) "[Bush] betrayed us!" speech.

On the other hand, people seem to behave differently out of office as opposed to in office, and Gore was part of the militant wing of the Democratic Party that was for Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox.  I wouldn't be surprised if in an alternate universe where Gore was President, he ended up invading Iraq. (Of course the invasion wouldn't have been as badly handled, but it would still have been wrong nonetheless.)


[ Parent ]
To add to this President Gore scenario (4.00 / 2)
I do think 9/11 probably would have been prevented if Gore had been President.  Maybe Katrina too.

Anyway, we can endlessly litigate what could've been, but let's not pretend like we would've gotten the second coming of the Great Society or anything.


[ Parent ]
I don't think that even Al Gore (4.00 / 1)
can stop a hurricane.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Lieberman was chosen to distance him from Lewinksy (4.00 / 1)
and back then, Lieberman hadn't completely dropped off of the deep end, anyway.  

And once again, we went to Iraq because Bush's administration pushed institutions very aggressively in order to do so.  It took active administration engagement.  There is nothing rational and evidence based that shows that Al Gore would have done the same.  If Al Gore were to have involved himself in a military adventure, the Sudan is probably a much better guess as to where it would have been.  


[ Parent ]
So what if it gave us Bush instead of Gore (0.00 / 0)
Gore would have likely gotten us into war too!  He was a Lieberdem!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
No, its not a good thing. (4.00 / 2)
YEs, its very important to win the election. Very important. But Palin's nomination would still be a horrible thing for the country. It would be a major step in the radicalization of the Republican party. That might be good for an electoral victory for the Democrats, but it would be very very bad for the health of our society. We should all be hoping that the not-completely-batshit-insane wing of the Republican party regains control of their party.  

[ Parent ]
When you say "radical", do you mean her rhetoric? (0.00 / 0)
Cuz her actual positions are standard-fare conservative Republican.  In fact I'm sure she's to the left of Ron Paul and Jim DeMint.

[ Parent ]
Not to be rude about it, but this is basically the continuation of sucking the cock (0.00 / 0)
of the pimp who doesn't give a shit about you.

"I aim to please Master!"

"Get out of here bitch!"

"Yes, Master!  Whatever you say Master!"

If we don't learn how to walk away, we will always be abused.

At the very least, vote minor party if you're in a safe state.  I mean, there's no excuse there.


[ Parent ]
I Agree She's In A Strong Position (4.00 / 3)
But remember when Hillary was inevitable?

People really do underestimate her at their peril.  But she's ultimately a plaything of the Gods, just like the rest of us.

And her interview special throws a completely contrary light on her.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


And yes (4.00 / 1)
it is easy to forget just how bad she is in uncontrolled environments.  Even someone like Mittens shouldn't have much trouble repeatedly making her look like an idiot in debates.  

[ Parent ]
... (3.00 / 4)
Is it that hard to make Mittens look like an idiot in debates?  He's nearly as bad.  And I hope to hell we hear about the dog story ad nauseum if he starts getting close.    Doesn't have the good sense to not strap a dog on a carrier rack, what sense does he have to run the country.

[ Parent ]
Not to say I want Romney to be President (0.00 / 0)
but the dog thing really has nothing to do with whether or not he should be President.  I mean, that's like saying someone shouldn't be President because he once left the oven on and accidentally burned his house down.

[ Parent ]
I just don't see it (4.00 / 3)
I don't see how the establishment gets behind Sarah Palin.  She had a lot of grass roots support, but I don't see how the big$ donors give her enough support to win the nomination.

I wish oh wish that she could become the nominee, but I don't see it.  God willing, let me be wrong.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget


I think this is your craziest post ever (4.00 / 4)
Just because Palin can draw a big crowd is hardly proof that she can win the nomination.  

And there is nothing at all scary about her being the nominee, aside for the GOP.  Most polls show her current favorability ratings are somewhere in the 30s.  I would sleep very well knowing she was the GOP candidate.


I wouldn't (4.00 / 3)
Palin being the GOP candidate would suck.  The entire election would be Palin calling Obama worse than Stalin, and Obama making even more centrist compromises to prove he's not the re-incarnation of Karl Marx.  There'd be no discussion of the issues, and no real chance for us to make our case to America that we have good ideas about what government can do to help.

While Obama would be very likely to win, it'd force him further to the center/right.  Even if we win, we wind up with a more conservative President than we have now.


[ Parent ]
except (0.00 / 0)
he'd at least be one not positioning himself at a centrist for reelection in 2016.

[ Parent ]
Does Obama need an excuse (4.00 / 4)
to move to the right?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Just like you don't need an excuse for making stupid comments. (2.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
I can confidently predict (4.00 / 3)
that the general dynamic you describe will happen regardless of which particular whacko the GOP puts up in 2012.  

[ Parent ]
I remember many progressives (4.00 / 1)
thinking the very same thing about Reagan in 1980.


[ Parent ]
Check her favorables (4.00 / 1)
40% strongly unfavorable among independents.  And that number's not going anywhere.

Palin, like Bush, is a person that everyone has already made up their mind about.  If she is the nominee, it is simply a turnout campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...


I think turnout will be damn high for both sides if she's the nominee (0.00 / 0)
but for Democrats it will be for all the wrong reasons.

[ Parent ]
Yes, there is (4.00 / 6)
There are a lot of easy ways Sarah Palin isn't the Republican nominee.  They're just not immediately visible right now.  

You're absolutely right that if you take current trends and project them out to 2012, Palin will win, but then again, if you took April 2006 trends out to 2008, Giuliani and Clinton would have been the nominees.  Don't forget that up until Summer 2006, George Allen was considered a serious 2008 Republican primary candidate.  In 1990, everyone thought Cuomo would spank Clinton in the primary.  It's still 8-12 months before people are even going to officially announce for the primary.


well i'm sure she won't do anything crazy if she wins (4.00 / 1)


It looks like the tea party is fizzlin out (4.00 / 1)
so my guess is for Romney or Thune, but even  if it is her, I won't fear because she is handpicked by the neocons,  they'll control.  She'll govern like Bush and Obama!  Maybe she'll say stupid things but it will be funny at least.

My blog  

Her forced childbirth agenda (4.00 / 4)
is VERY extreme. And she doesn't care who gets hurt in the process (God will sort them out, I guess).

She would be much, much worse than Bush or Obama.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I don't trust obama on choice either (4.00 / 1)
!  She just talks meaner.  That is good in my view because nobody can pretend the government is good.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
But she will actively go after it. (4.00 / 1)
He will give it away passively.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
well that is like the difference between starving (0.00 / 0)
to death vs being shot as far as I am concerned.  Get it over with!  Go Nader!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
While I respect Nader immensely and despise Nader-bashing (0.00 / 0)
I don't think his running for President again would be helpful.  If he has to run for office he should run for something lower like House or Senate (and like 40 years ago, as he's getting too old now).

I would've loved a Senator Nader cuz I know for sure he would have blocked a HCR bill with no public option! (Then again, being in office changes you, so who knows...)


[ Parent ]
Not trusting Obama = Fear of a religious and cultural extremist (0.00 / 0)
Right. Got it.

[ Parent ]
Which is why she's not voting for either bad choice (0.00 / 0)
Get it?

[ Parent ]
Not sure if you're talking to me (4.00 / 1)
but if you are, what I was saying is, with Palin on the ticket I would have to hold my nose and vote for Obama. My fear of her is greater than my loathing of him. And I don't think I would be the only one in that position, which is why I call Palin the "get-out-of-jail-free card."

With Palin on the ticket there is zero accountability for Obama, and we can expect him to behave accordingly.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Not to mention that she's just overtly incompetent (4.00 / 1)
Every moment of her on stage in an unscripted environment has just been bizarre.  She's not capable of managing anything.  She'd be an amalgam of Harding's ineptness with Nixon's pettiness.  In fact, that would probably be the only saving grace--she'd be too inept to actually enact most of the insane reactionary bullshit that she would want to.    

[ Parent ]
Plus as long as we have 41 votes in the Senate (4.00 / 1)
we'll just filibuster everything, as the Republicans are doing now.

...right?


[ Parent ]
41 votes (0.00 / 0)
Senate Democrats had little willingness to filibuster when they were in the minority and Bush was in office.  I remember a Supreme Court nomination that got over 40 nos but just 25 or so votes for filibuster.

[ Parent ]
that was the strategy for stopping the invasion of Iraq (0.00 / 0)
...oh yeah.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Alaska (4.00 / 2)
Palin had trouble governing in Alaska.  She basically forged a governing coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats who existed as a block to her crazier ideas.  A Palin regime would do no good but less harm than many other Republicans would.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
I may be a paranoid sort, but if a GOPper with as little foreign/military experience gets in the WH, I see that as a kind of "power vacuum" that will get filled up by all sort of permawar hawks and nouvelle neo-cons. That could bring a very negative flavor to a weak leader like Palin' administration.

If we go back to GOPpers, I rather have one that will be able to control their own administration.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Just Like Bush (4.00 / 5)
A Palin regime would do no good but less harm than many other Republicans would.

'Cause it's always sooo easy to extrapolate from the governor's mansion to the WH.

But, then if it is, just one question: Who's her VP?  Because that's who takes over in 2014, when she flakes out.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Good point. (4.00 / 1)
I don't doubt her intentions but her follow-through is certainly questionable.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Tim Pawlenty (0.00 / 0)
he makes a habit of surrounding himself with GOPpers who are more insane than he is, thus making himself appear relatively sane.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Until she starts nuking people. Which she would. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
... (1.33 / 9)
Fuck you... It's assholes like you that led us to 8 years of Bush.  

[ Parent ]
Whoakay, sparky... (4.00 / 1)
Cuz the Democrats (and Republicans) who voted for Bush and then voted for him again had nothing to do with it, right?

Btw, to the three people who uprated this comment: really?


[ Parent ]
Not endorsing that comment... (0.00 / 0)
But it is true that, after 2000, a lot of us consoled ourselves that Bush was too politically weak and personally stupid to do much harm -- he'd serve out his one term accomplishing very little with zero political capital.

Then 9/11 came along and changed everything. So, while I seriously doubt that Palin could win in '12, I'm painfully aware that the unthinkable can (and does) happen.  


[ Parent ]
Barring filibuster reform in 2011, can't we just filibuster everything? (0.00 / 0)
Like the Republicans do now?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that was so clearly NOT the responsibility of the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Dem and GOP nominations don't work the same way (4.00 / 3)
If this was a Dem candidate and open nomination we were talking about, I might be inclined to agree with you, Chris... though even then her high negatives would give me great pause.

But, I just don't see it happening. The GOP nomination process just doesn't work the same way as the Dems. They always manage to fix it so the establishment pick gets the nod.

Palin is not going to be the establishment pick--she's not reliable enough. She failed her audition.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


Nate Silver analyzed this months ago... (4.00 / 1)
The GOP has rigged the 2012 primary so that a more mainstream candidate has a significant upper hand.  All the super red states get to go last.  The more "liberal" states, many with open primaries, go first.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
must be the same people who rigg the dems (0.00 / 0)
so all the conservative states  go first and the liberal states go last.  Go figure!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
A lot more winner take all than the Dem side too (4.00 / 4)
Which usually makes it harder for non-establishment candidates, under the assumption that they are usually running in 2nd or 3rd place.

Also: one suspects that more mainstream candidates would be under enormous pressure to withdraw and unify behind Romney/Thune/ABP.


[ Parent ]
" A continually weak economy--which is very possible--could actually make her President less than " (4.00 / 7)
I completely agree. We should not be gloating about the problems Palin poses for Republicans. We should be worried that she might be President.

Obama should have been thinking about unemployment a year ago, and he should be thinking about employment now. A year from now might be too late. And I don't trust him to do the right thing at all.


And look out for Lou Dobbs. (4.00 / 1)
I'm only quarter-kidding.  

[ Parent ]
President Obama should start thinking about his OWN unemployment (0.00 / 0)
and so should we. (This does NOT mean President Palin/Romney/some other right-winger, btw.)

[ Parent ]
31 comments in quick succession can only mean one thing: fear. (4.00 / 4)
Look, if a governor like George Bush can get elected to the presidency, there is every fear to believe that Sarah Palin can do likewise. An ex-beauty queen and our first female president, what's not to like?

Please don't respond.


George Bush was a unique phenomenon (4.00 / 10)
a GOP blue-blood, third-generation scion of a powerful political dynasty, son of an ex-president and CIA director and member of the Carlyle Group, with deep, longstanding ties to oil, defense, and Wall Street. Establishment insiders don't come any more inside than Dubya did. He's as close to royalty as this country gets.

The genius of Bush was that, despite his insider status, he could play a shitkicker cowboy on TV, and turn out the religious right even better than Reagan. The GOP base adored him.

The left still doesn't understand that Bush was not a weak candidate at all--he was one of most formidable candidates the GOP has fielded in the last forty years.

We haven't seen anything like him before, and we're not likely too for a long long time.

Palin doesn't have those insider ties, so she'd have to work a lot harder for it.


[ Parent ]
But Bush's competency was so in question, that papa Bush had to ask an old friend, Cheney, to babysit Bush Jr. for the next four years. (4.00 / 2)

I think that it was Rove's insights rather than dysnastical bearings that was the critical factor. Now that is perhaps just what Palin needs to bring her to the top among the RNC contenders. If not that, then maybe Obama will get caught with his pants down, and then we'll have a deja vu.  

[ Parent ]
Rove taught Bush how to put on the cowboy act, (4.00 / 7)
but without the backing of the plutocrats who knew they could exploit their longstanding connections to his family, we would never have heard of him.

They were very comfortable with Bush, because they knew his father and knew they could do business with the son, who proved to be exactly the sort of malleable fellow that served their purposes.

Palin needs no Rove to teach her how to play a pious salt-of-the-earth cowgirl; unlike Bush, she's not pretending to be like the GOP base; she is like the GOP base. She's one of them, which is why they adore her.

But she has yet to earn the kind of trust from our ruling class that Bush enjoyed; they view her, quite accurately, as an unstable demagogue, not a docile puppet. So they're not as eager to get behind her.


[ Parent ]
There's a lot more GOP base than ruling class (4.00 / 2)
Until the ruling class figures out how to buy votes, this will be a problem for them.

[ Parent ]
This is the smartest comment about Bush I've seen in a long long time. (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
The notion (4.00 / 1)
that a very popular two term Governor from a large state was not a very good candidate has always struck me as odd.

The Shrub beat an incumbent Governor in '94, and blew away the GOP field in the race for the nomination.  Bush Jr. was a formidable candidate running against the VP of a two term President (who seldom win).  

2000 was always going to be a tough race.


[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
Bush had the family name, Bush was a better actor and most importantly a President with his lack of Credentials hadn't happened for Decades.  Palin doesn't have those luxuries.

[ Parent ]
why not Huckabee? (4.00 / 2)
he won the Iowa caucuses despite having virtually no money, came in a close second in many caucuses in the South. He's been doing book tours and has a show on FOX.

Just because he says he's not likely to run now, doesn't mean anything. He also has the advantage of not currently holding political office, which is going to stand him in good stead during the coming tidal wave of anti-incumbent anger. Several months ago another criminal he pardoned murdered someone, and his opponents tried to dirty him up with the story, but it didn't really stick.

The GOP is in a place similar to where the Democrats were after Kerry's defeat. They ran a sitting senator who wasn't terribly mediagenic, and lost. The base is going to want a winner, and the GOP establishment will back whomever they think can make it. If the money men can come to some kind of understanding with Huckabee, they'll support him, albeit reluctantly.

Palin cannot pull in moderates and independents, but Huckabee can. He is shrewd enough to hold his own with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and anyone who can spar with those guys and come off as a likable, genial fellow is a very formidable candidate. That's the edge he has in the general election.

They'll bring Palin out to bless whoever they do run. But her role is strictly ceremonial.


Huckabee scares me far, far more than Palin (4.00 / 2)
He's just as reactionary, much more plausible when criticising Wall Street, and much more likely to get elected, because he's not as prone to being overtly stupid on TV.  

[ Parent ]
I am not scared of anything anymore (4.00 / 1)
I am completely prepared for the worst and will vote for the best candidates available not the least worst!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Am I the only one who thinks it's a sad day when we're "scared" of our politicians? (4.00 / 1)
What was that quote from V for Vendetta...

[ Parent ]
She won't run (4.00 / 3)
I don't believe she has any intention of running because being president would mean she would actually have to govern, which she doesn't have the slightest interest in doing. The situation is perfect for her right now--she can draw adoring crowds to her events, do her TV show and her Fox stuff, all without having to be accountable to anyone except herself. Do recall that she wasn't so popular when she was the VP nomination and had to actually talk about issues and campaign.

The most important thing to her is to maintain her status as a "celebritician" a hybrid of celebrity and politician, where she doesn't have to answer questions or debate issues. To run for President would mean that she would lose all that.


Mebbe, but how much of a closely (4.00 / 1)
covered and RW-coveted celeb would she be once she announces she isn't running for anything in 2012?  How would them Faux ratings hold up?  Will anyone want to shell out $20 bucks for her books?  Pay her 50 or 100k a pop to show up and speak the standard RW boilerplate before their group?

Usually in politics when you have the hot hand, which she does, you strike when the iron is still hot.

As for actually governing, I recall that another lightweight, one Shrub Bush, left most of the heavy lifting of governing to people like Cheeney and a few others.  A hard-working detail oriented guy he was not.  Plenty of time for those two-hour daily workouts in the gym, the hour for nap time, and the hour or two for a leisurely lunch to catch up on what the people doing the actual work were up to.


[ Parent ]
She'll run. (4.00 / 4)
She's got a taste of it and she wants more. Power is like crack to people like her.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
She couldn't wait to get out of governing in Alaska. Now, maybe that's "small potatoes" to someone like her, but I think that after the 2008 campaign, she really has no desire to experience any more "Katie Couric" moments where she can't control the narrative. She is already the darling of the extreme right-wing, as well as the mainstream media, and once you have those things going for you, why spoil it by running for President?  

[ Parent ]
As president (0.00 / 0)
she would have complete control of the narrative.

2012 is the reason she quit her day job. She wants to prepare full-time for this without any distractions, raise a wingnut army and take the White House.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I still disagree Sadie (4.00 / 1)
As president, you really don't have control of the narrative, as there are so many competing narratives trying to oppose you. Look at Obama--to some he is socialist, to others a far left liberal, to some a conservative, and to still others he was not even born in this country. While some of this is a product of different people's interpretations of his policies, it is also the result of groups, such as the far right, Fox News, etc., who are running counter-narratives against him, many of which stick for some portion of the population, despite the fact that Obama personally is popular. Except among teabaggers and the like, Palin has nowhere near Obama's popularity, and never will. As I said before, look at how popular she was when she was the VP candidate and she actually had to campaign. For the most part, she was considered a drag on the ticket. She also has no support among moderates or independents, and if she actually tried to run for president, her policy and general ignorance would be exposed to such a degree that it would make Bush seem like Albert Einstein. To some degree, I think she knows this, which is why I think she'll stay right where she is, as the darling of the teabagger crowd, which she can spout any drivel she wants without any push back.

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right, (4.00 / 2)
but she already has FOX News, and Murdoch, and I fully expect the regular corporate media to fall in line if she becomes the nominee, just like they fell in line after Bush stole the election in 2000. They will prop her up like they did him.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Also if Obama keeps caving in instead of fighting (4.00 / 3)
for main street, it will make dems sour. Obama better get rid of his spine flu or  grow a spine as the case maybe. Else he will lose badly to a stupid repuglican. People after all prefer a douchebag over a wimp. Just ask Dukakis, gore, Kerry.  

They can't control her (4.00 / 2)
They won't run her because they can't control her.  Besides, she doesn't want power, she wants money.

Pawlenty is at her side to demonstrate that they CAN control him.  


At one point she might have wanted (4.00 / 4)
primarily money.  But usually people who've gotten their feet wet in politics eventually dream of the top spot and how to get there and how quickly.  And now that she's got money, and probably realizes how relatively easy it was for her to get lots of it -- been there done that, bought all the fancy clothes she'd always wanted -- she likely is setting her sights on something else.

Besides, the presidency doesn't pay badly at all these days, has all the perks and limelight and limos and underlings shuffling and Yes M'amming in your presence and showing all due deference because of your position.   And after you're done, there are still more millions to make in book, movie and tv deals.

And Pawlenty isn't a bad VP choice for her.  Smarter yet wouldn't overshadow her and would tend to moderate her for the masses in the middle.  Able to deal with the detail of governing, a must for the too busy to govern Palin.


[ Parent ]
She's probably making more now than she would as President (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Control cuts both ways (4.00 / 1)
I agree that the Republican establishment doesn't control Palin, but that cuts both ways.  If they can't control her, they can't stop her from doing anything - including running.  And they can't stop people from sending her money, possibly enough to counteract the big donors.

sPh


[ Parent ]
Naaaah (4.00 / 1)
Congrats on hitting on a comment-provoking title, but naaaaah.

She'll get as far as Dan Quayle's juggernaut did in 1996.

Even Rudy will be beating her.


Dan Quayle (4.00 / 1)
had no killer instinct, no bloodlust. She has both in spades.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
If she wants it she gets it (4.00 / 3)
She is a political idiot savant and she is also politically gifted.

She is personally likable and hey that matters a lot

As soon as she showed up I knew she was polticially dangerous because she was so appealling.  I would not underestimate her getting the nomination and if the economy isn't really good having a lot of traction.

We know she makes no sense, but then she displays the same lack of sense that many people have ...the very same people who will vote for her.

Of course there is still a vote getting, prmary by caucus process and she could mismanage that.  She could also stay very greedy.

But she may prove that Elia Kazan was finally right about politics when he made A Face in the Crowd about a know it all, sly hillbilly who becomes a major poltical force.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


She pushes the same tribal identity buttons (4.00 / 1)
for her people that Obama does for the NPR liberal crowd. They see her as "one of ours" and no matter how bad she messes up, they love her more for it. That's a hard nut to crack.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The attitude I've seen of "Bring on Palin. . . (4.00 / 2)
. . .because she'd be a breeze to defeat" really worries me. They said the same thing about George W. Bush. Sorry, we absolutely cannot afford taking any risk that someone this ignorant and reckless could become President.

She should not be underestimated. (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, she's an idiot, but if that mattered, this blog post wouldn't exist. Eight years of Bush taught me not to dismiss any possibility, no matter how absurd.

I admit I've rubbed my hands in glee in anticipation of a Palin candidacy, but also have to admit that's a pretty cynical attitude. I absolutely want the GOP to eat shit come 2012, but also want a competent President no matter who wins.  


[ Parent ]
The problem with predictions (0.00 / 0)
At this point in 2006, how many people were saying that the Democratic nominee would be the freshly elected black guy in the US Senate?

Predicting who's going to run at this point is a foolhardy exercise, let alone who'll win.

That said... as to Palin's chances:

A large part of winning a primary is convincing voters that you can win in the general. The 2012 Republicans primary will boil down to "I'm the one who can beat Obama" - and can you really see the majority of Republican primary voters buying that argument from Palin?

My money would be on some currently off-the-radar white guy to get the nod; someone who can act as a Rorschach test on which the base can project their wild lunatic fantasies, but ultimately seems moderate enough to everyone else to actually have a shot at winning. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if it was Scott Brown.

Plus, it really seems like Palin doesn't have any real interest anyway. She cashed out of politics for a career in media. Maybe she's dumb enough to think she can go back, maybe she'll try, but I don't think she will.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox