1. Enthusiasm. People tend to see electorate through a one-dimensional lens, in which a fixed number of voters are trying to decide between two or more candidates. But that's not really how politics works, especially in primaries. Rather, the playing field is (at least) two-dimensional: people are not merely trying to decide whom to vote for, but also whether to vote at all. Because of the reach of her brand, Palin has the ability to engage the sorts of voters who might ordinarily stay at home. In the general election, that will include some voters who turn out to vote against her -- but that's less of a concern in the primaries.
2. 2010. Next November will probably be a happy night for Republicans and my guess the emergent c.w. will be that it occurred because of, rather than in spite of, the Republicans eschewing moderation in favor of (re)building their base. In reality, that case is likely to be highly circumstantial at best -- it might be that Republicans gain, I don't know, 26 House seats, but would have gained 33 if they'd run more to the center. But that won't prevent people from leaping to conclusions, and I expect those conclusions to tend to play favorably for Palin.
3. The other candidates are flawed. Mitt Romney has limited appeal to the evangelical base and is an unapologetically establishment candidate in a primary where anti-establishment sentiments are liable to prevail. Newt Gingirch has never been especially popular, has never won an election for any office higher than the U.S. House, and lost some street cred among conservative activists with his failure to endorse Doug Hoffman. Tim Pawlenty is unpopular in his home state, barely registering as a national candidate, and appears to suffer from Romney's flaw of running away from his record. Mike Huckabee, I think, is underrated, but the Club for Growth crowd will never like him, and his hokeyness could grow a little tiresome in the face of a year-long primary campaign.
4. The other candidates might not run. Although I doubt that Palin can clear the conservative half of the GOP field, someone like a Huckabee could very well decide to go ahead and let Palin run her course, re-entering the field in a 2016 climate that is liable to be more favorable to Republicans.
5. The media will be rooting for her. She's good for the bottom line; off the top of my head, I'd guess that an Obama versus Palin election would generate at least 20-30 percent higher ratings than Obama against Mystery Republican X. Also, some players in the liberal media may be rooting for her because they'll assume that a Palin win in the primary could give Obama an easier path toward re-election.
6. She's tough to campaign against. Why? Because any perceived or real slight against Palin is taken by her supporters as an example of sexism, elitism, or media bias; just wait until Huckabee or Romney makes their first impolitic comment about Palin in a debate or an interview and watch the sparks fly.
7. There are virtually no moderates left in the Republican base. Although, there may be a significant number of independents voting in some of the primary states, which makes things marginally harder for Palin than in election where many independents were sucked into the Democratic primaries.
8. Attempts by the Republican Establishment to neuter her may backfire. This is a corollary of #6 above. If the Establishment, owing to electability concerns or whatever else, tries to put hurdles in her way by re-structuring the primary or delegate allocation process, it may only play into the victimization complex of Palin and her supporters.
9. Parties tend to nominate more extreme candidates in elections against incumbents. This tendency is not all that robust, but you can find plenty of examples of parties nominating extremely liberal/conservative candidates in elections against incumbents, such as George McGovern, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, and Barry Goldwater. There are some counter-examples too -- Bill Clinton, arguably, and someone like Thomas Dewey if you want to go back that far -- but on balance, parties seem to nominate more extremist candidates in elections against incumbents than in open seat contests.
10. She gets new media; new media gets her. Conservative blogs love Palin, as do most of the shock jocks; they matter a great deal and may help Palin to overcome what I expect will prove to be a relatively shoddy traditional infrastructure.
* - *
Now then, do I think Palin is the favorite to win the Republican primary? Not necessarily. She's certainly not the majority favorite and perhaps not the plurality favorite, depending on who runs. And you could fairly easily come up with a set of ten bullet points to argue against Palin's chances. But I think she'll run, and I think it would be a mistake to discount her chances too significantly given the makeup and mood of the Republican primary electorate.
11.18.2009
10 Reasons That Sarah Palin Could Win the Republican Nomination
by Nate Silver @ 5:51 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

294 comments
As I've posted previously, I think Palin is not capable of winning the Republican nomination. It's not a problem of positioning, or message, or fund-raising. It's that she's such a dithering fool that she can neither delegate her campaign's decision-making to somebody else, nor make the decisions herself.
I could imagine some competent campaign strategist who would be able to maneuver her through all the minefields of the primary season and bring her to victory. But I can't imagine Palin either hiring such a person, nor allowing him/her room to do the job.
A successful candidate can be incompetent or a control-freak, but they can't be BOTH.
A Palin nomination would be so bad for the Republicans that it could lead to a 50 state sweep for President Obama and would probably cost the Republicans more than 30 seats in the House. Given that the Democrats will be able to eliminate 30 or more Republican incumbents with redistricting. A Palin nomination could eliminate 30 more.
A Palin nomination could eliminate the few Republicans left north of the Virginia and would probably eliminate most of the Republicn in California, Oregon, Washing, and the Midwest.
Demographic changes in the U.S. will eventually eliminate the Republican Party. The incompetence of the Bush Administration, and the Congressional Republicans had sped up the process. A Palin nomination would complete the collapse of the Republicans.
Nate, although I agree with your points, 3-1 still seems ridiculous. Should be in the ~10-1 range I think, as it is dependant on your 2-1 on her running at all and 3-1 after that looks low anyway.
If you look at the 2008 GOP primary/caucus calendar and project it forward there are ample opportunities for Palin to get wins.
If Palin can get 35% in a split field in a winner take all state like Florida, what would the narrative be in the press? "Frontrunner", that's what. And then all the 'I won't vote for Palin' people have to reconsider because maybe she's a winner, not a joke.
Palin isn't just a joke. If she makes the general election she's one bad world event from being President and that's...uh...bad.
One reason she won't. She could never in a million years pass the C-in-C test and Reps usually nominate someone who has a chance to win ie McCain. The irony of course that someone who is somewhat qualified to be C-in-C picked someone as v-p who was totally unqualified to be C-in-C, but hey she's a babe and love that wink! :)
This is where your #3 comes in because the Rep field is sooo weak for 2012, none of the candidates may qualify as C-in-C, but I would pick Romney or Huckabee over Palin as C-in-C if I were a rational Rep.
Of course Palin has to get in to win. You have to be in it to win it and I don't think she will run which makes #1 thru #10 moot.
McCain was nominated because of his military background and being a genuine war hero among a field of mostly chicken hawks.
hmm, Petraeus may be a good choice, but is he a Republican and generals make terrible candidates for president in the cable news media era. Maybe Obama should nominate him as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, eh.
I digress
Did I mention Palin could never pass the C-in-C test ...
I have a few questions that I would love Nate and the readers to answer but the main one is how does the bet work regarding when Palin decides to run, what if she jumps in as late as Fred Thompson does, or even later, when does the transaction occur?
Also, I was curious in a general election how Palin would perform in alaska (because she resigned)?
Speaking of her resigning, isn't that going to be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problem if she runs. If I recall correctly, she didn't have a very good reason for resigning, can someone remind me why she resigned? I mean, Romney will run ads saying once a quitter always a quitter.
While Palin will run, it won't be that easy for her to win, she has virtually no executive experience, no legislative experience, she doesn't seem very politically savvy I just can't see her running a good campaign. And while she's doing good in Oprah interviews, I don't think she'll do well with Gibson Round 2.
The media thinks she's a joke, Tiny Fey will come back and get better ratings. If she makes one mistake, the media will blow it out of proportion.
There's no such thing as a C-in-C test and if there were she's a former Governor of America's biggest border state. She passes any C-in-C test as well as GWB, Reagan, Romney, or Huckabee if you go by her resume. Otherwise it's entirely subjective and you don't have to clear subjective hurdles to be President, you have to win delegates.
Nate:
Great post! Thank you for looking at the question in an unbiased manner (of course, as joejoejoe points out, if she wins the first five primaries, then all the "I can't vote for Palin" Republicans will come around). Another factor is REVERSE Operation Chaos. Assuming that Obama is the uncontested nominee for the Democrats, tons of newly-registered "Republicans" will be flocking to Palin from the left. The hatred she inspires from them will blind them to the fact, once nominated, all bets are off and anything can happen.
Again, I appreciate your impartial analysis on this question and (needless to say) hope you win your wager with Tom. Which steakhouse will you select?
Forgot to mention in the history of the presidency no wartime incumbent president has ever lost re-election. Which was a major factor for Bush in 2004.
This is why clueless Kerry was swiftboated and hate and fear ruled the campaign as Bush could not run on his record, so he scorched earth his way to victory. Even if one is a terrible C-in-C, he still has all the advantages of incumbency.
Republicans always had the advantage and were more trusted re: national security and foreign affairs, but 2001 to 2009 changed the political equation.
Marcus Lang:
She resigned because a lame-duck administration was bad for Alaska and to derail Obama. Gibson is retiring, and she has more executive experience, dealing with an actual legislature to get things done, than Obama did. Of course the media think she's a joke (see Nate's point #3 above). Don't you worry yourself about the details. This is going to be a jagarnaut (sp?). Have you read her book yet?
shiloh:
Did you ever watch the Rocky movie where he comes back under tremendous odds to finally beat Apollo Creed? Great (campaign?) soundtrack too.
Reason 11 Palin may win:
Winner take all primaries in the early repub primaries give someone who can pull 30-35% in a field with a large number of candidates enough to win. Iowa repubs are religious crazies and good for her, as are repubs in South Carolina. She might just do this, she will need a break but it might work. I hope she wins, it will wreck the repub party for years and insure minority status, GO SARAH!
Charles-
Wow,sanity has truly escaped you this morning:
"Assuming that Obama is the uncontested nominee for the Democrats, tons of newly-registered "Republicans" will be flocking to Palin from the left."
That is beyond laugh out loud funny! Most dems are dems because of social issues, thus this is truly a historically funny comment. This might be true of Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe, but no way for Sarah.
That said, all dems need to register in the repub primaries and vote for Sarah, she will be the best thing for the Democrats since Obama.
Charles said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Preferred All the President's Men where Nixon resigned in disgrace! :)
Re: Palin, reminded of a quote from another movie, Thank you for a memorable afternoon, usually one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature. ~ Steal something casual ...
Unconsidered factor:
Babygate
Babygate
Bears repeating.
This is more potent than Michelle Obama's alleged "whitey" tape.
Chris-
For babygate updates: http://www.palindeception.com/
What is so weird about babygate is that she is intentionally antagonizing the 19 year old Playgirl model that has all the facts. Weird strategery.
Any chance that Rove or Cheney would step in to be her brain? Could she handle it?
Bradford:
"That said, all dems need to register in the repub primaries and vote for Sarah, she will be the best thing for the Democrats since Obama."
You just described REVERSE Operation Chaos. I don't expect many of those newly-registered "Republicans" to vote for her in the general election. I guess that I didn't explain the concept enough. Have you read her book yet?
Charles-
We agree on reverse Operation Chaos. I will sure vote for sister Sarah!
I dont read much fiction...
It's not "fiction". Have you read her book?
Perfect post on Palin's VP! BECK!
http://www.theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/
@Charles
Lame duck session ? She resigned as a governor in the middle of the greatest recession in over 3 decades. Exactly the time when a governor has to sit down and make tough decisions. I may not like other Republican governors but at least they are trying to figure out ways to balance the books. All she is doing is charging 100 bucks for a signed copy of her book and going around in a celebrity tour.
@Bradford
Palin is a passive aggressive type. 19 year old Levi seems more mature than her.
I don't think she can let herself anyone handle her.
If you don't even want to answer that question, how about retracting you "(in)sanity" smear against me, considering you do actually agree with me and boast you will vote for her too?
Charles-
Your post is insane if you meant the general, as your post implied to me at least. Sorry if you really meant the primary.
Charles-
Everyone says it is fiction, including McCain and Schmidt. The Alaska folks are laughing at the family story and the reason she entered politics in the book (hint: she really entered for the AIP). The book is fiction and petty attacks. No need to read that, most of us grew out of this phase about 10th grade...
@Dem-in_Virginia
She resigned as a governor in the middle of the greatest recession in over 3 decades. Exactly the time when a governor has to sit down and make tough decisions. I may not like other Republican governors but at least they are trying to figure out ways to balance the books.
Exactly!
Just check this glowing tribute to Bobby Jindal at Reason:
Louisiana Provides Model for Closing Budget Deficit
"Contrast this with Louisiana, the state taking the most thoughtful approach to solving its fiscal crisis. Pelican State policymakers, led by Governor Bobby Jindal, have embarked on a wide-ranging set of government reforms designed to reduce the size and cost of government."
"Arizona policymakers face a simple choice: remain lost in the fiscal forest with California or follow the lead of Louisiana, which is blazing a trail out. "
http://reason.org/news/show/louisiana-provides-model-for-c
Bobby Jindal is infinitely more qualified than Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, he is not white enough for the rest of the republican national base.
DEM_in_Virginia:
Did you not see / read her resignation speech?! Given how hamstrung she was by all the frivolous ethics filings, there was no way she could effectively deal with those issues. That's why she let Parnell take over to get those issues resolved (and give him the "incumbent" experience for re-election to boot ;)
"She's certainly not the majority favorite and perhaps not the plurality favorite, depending on who runs."
Many Republicans are skeptical of supporting her because they are not confident she can win the general election. Conservatives want, beyond anything else right now, a candidate who has a chance of beating Obama.
They are not sure she can overcome the liberal media bias and the Democrat hatred for her because she did not abort her Downs Syndrome child, or that she's a mother of 5, or that she's attractive, or that she's a woman, or that she's not a feminist loon, or that she believes in strong national defense, or that wants to drill for oil, or that she believes in God. You know, those far right wingnut values she has.
If her popularity grows even slightly over the next couple years, there will be a snowball effect of support if it becomes clear that she even has a chance of beating Obama.
She resigned because a lame-duck administration was bad for Alaska .... she has more executive experience, dealing with an actual legislature to get things done
So on the experience line it's "Govenorship that turned unrepairably Lame Duck in less than 2 years"? Now there's a record to run on! :)
@Mark Grebner
I think that the chance of her winning the nomination is highly dependant on her learning that lesson. Did she learn that lesson enough that she'll stay out of the way enough and not piss of a campaign manager, and more importantly pick a campaign manager that grok's her "crazy" enough that they are willing to work with it for an extended period? Improbable maybe but I don't think it's impossible.
Charles-
Did you not see her resignation sppech? It was rambling, poorly drafted, and pretty nutty. Obama survived IL politics where the type of ethics attacks on her are not even the childs play of IL politics.
Bradford:
Apology accepted (this whole thread is about the GOP primaries, and the very next sentence after the one you took exception to read "The hatred she inspires from them will blind them to the fact, once nominated, all bets are off and anything can happen."). Not "everyone" is saying the book is fiction, just Sarah Palin haters.
The problem for Palin that I expect Tom will bring up is that her support is wide but not deep. That is to say a lot of conservative Republicans like her, but she probably isn't their first choice. For example, Huckabee has more clout with religious conservatives. Ron Paul will steal some of the anti-establishment vote. Republican women would probably prefer someone a bit more moderate, like Romney, DeMint can beat her wit died in the wool firebrands.
Thus, Palin would need a trememdously strong first couple of primaries to convert what seems likely to be a lot of Republicans for whom she is the second choice. My prediction is that she can't win if Huckabee runs, and she also can't win if DeMint or someone similar runs an effective campaign.
She's also f'd if Cantor runs, because he is in my mind the only Republican who can beat Obama right now.
Charles said...
~~~~~~~~~~
She could not stand the heat, so she got out of her kitchen w/Greta ;) and left town to make some money.
This is not rocket science!
If I were her and knew my career in politics was dead, would have done the same ...
She's good looking, which is her main appeal, and can use the teleprompter as good as Obama as her convention speech indicated. But she's a compulsive liar and whiner and she's smart enough to realize this, so she's out to make a buck while she can.
Livin' la Vida Loca!
GROG said...
the Democrat hatred for her because she did not abort her Downs Syndrome child
Come on GROG, do you really believe that crock of crap? Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if she herself has claimed that (has she really?), but that's total bullshit after putting the fetus in harm's way with an amniocentesis test. *eye roll*
Charles-
A deeper point on the general may be that the best female candidate for the Republicans, if they want to win in 2012 or 2016, is Olympia Snowe or a Kay Bailey Hutch after she wins the Texas governorship...those women can build the type of centerist coalition it will take to win, but not Sarah.
Dwight:
Perhaps you missed the latest Newsweek cover, but I think that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how bad the media have it to destroy her. I saw (and more importantly READ) the speech which had a lot in there, so maybe that's why you thought it was "rambling". It was no more rambling than the "You won't have Nixon to kick around" speech. On second thought. Maybe you shouldn't read her 400 page book (it's too "rambling").
Reason number 11 she wins.
There is a GOD!!! Please, please, please win
#11: It Makes No Difference.
Obama will win hands down anyway, and since smart Republcan's will know it makes no difference who gets the nomination, they will stay home, or actively vote for Palin as a celebrity that can roil the waters.
Smart Republican candidates won't bother; both Democrats and Republicans harbor grudges against losers they supported, and there is no point in scratching up your image in 2012 if you hope to do something in 2016.
Finally, Obama and crew are not stupid as politicians, as shown by his campaign, they are the smartest of the bunch. Come mid 2010, they will do something to win over Democrats & Independents, one way or another; and believe me, if the D&I see any chance Palin is the alternative, we will be voting Obama in droves.
Bradford:
The wager between Nate and Tom is not about the general election.
Reason #12:
Sarah Palin promised Piper that she would run.
I dont know.... she'd have to beat Mike Huckabee in Iowa or Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. If she doesn't succeed there, she must win South Carolina - although I expect the Republicans to reform their primary process in Romney's favor (mainly against Huckabee). Iowa and New Hampshire will be untouched but everything else.... There aren't many places where she would have a plurality of the votes. She'd do better with a proportional distribution of delegates.
Follow the Money, Honey!
Remember Palin is in it for the money. Any psychologist trained to recognize artifice sees it in Palin; she has no core ideology or principles or allegiances. Looking at her new book of lies, so many it offends even Republican campaign politicians, I doubt she has any morals either. (Offending those sociopaths is the equivalent of making a vulture gag).
She got lucky and has never been dooing anything but cashing in.
She was cashing in on the Governor's job, and she quit when it looked like she couldn't get away with that anymore, due to heightened scrutiny. Fuck governance, if there's no money in it she's out of there.
There is money in a presidential campaign and she has seen it first hand, tasted it, and she wants the whole enchilada. Who cares if you lose? The point is how easy it is to convert big chunks of those tens of millions of dollars into your own pocket money. It's all about the money, honey!
"Obama survived IL politics"
I can't think of a better place to be unethical. Heck, we have terrorists teaching in our schools that get citizenship awards.
Palin would loose to Obama, but she might be the only major GOP figure who would when we finally get to 2012. Quinnipiac has his popularity slipping to 48%, and the policies much worse.
By the way, all you Rasmussen bashers, what do you make of this torpedo below the waterline of ABC/Post's latest pro-Obama poll:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/17/wapoabc-poll-the-14-point-partisan-gap/
Absurd. But Nate never seems to work up any interest in bogus polls that cut in favor of his side. If he wants to be credible, he'd better start.
Perhaps you missed the latest Newsweek cover, but I think that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how bad the media have it to destroy her.
I had not seen it. But...this was suppose to be some sort of response to something I said? You'll have to excuse my, I'm not familiar with PalinWatch talking points. What's the problem? She's upset that she's being discussed as a problem for the GOP? :)
Perhaps you missed the latest Newsweek cover, but I think that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how bad the media have it to destroy her.
ah diddums....couldn't happen to a nicer, more intelligent and curious person...
brian said...
"Obama survived IL politics"
I can't think of a better place to be unethical.
Yet he managed to avoid it. He succeeded exactly because of that. He breezed uncontested into his State Rep seat precisely because he didn't do the business-as-usual bullshit corner cutting when filing his candidacy papers.
Reason why Palin is more likely to run in 2012 than wait until 2016:
She will lose her killer looks. Already there are calls for Carrie Prejean to enter politics form republican men.
If I recall correctly, she didn't have a very good reason for resigning, can someone remind me why she resigned?
[beginPKtransmission]
"Her reason was simple, profound, genius, and easy for all non-libtards to see. To destroy Socialist Muslims and save America, before its too late!!"
[endPKtransmission]
Probably cause Obama did so little, hard to get in trouble. The guys' Senate career was essentially campaining for another job.
And I'd still like to know how Michelle Obama got a big promotion at her job and all the perks that were promised to her employer.
And I'd still like to know how Michelle Obama got a big promotion at her job and all the perks that were promised to her employer.
Halliburton, perchance?
"And I'd still like to know how Michelle Obama got a big promotion at her job and all the perks that were promised to her employer."
Simple answer: She is very good at what she does, just like her husband.
Charles, please stop huffing paint, it is seriously bad for you. Palin "haters" aside, have you seen the fact check, but I guess that's just "liberal media bias" becasue we all know reporting on what stories she told herself compared to what she published is somehow "biased". You people are beyond repair. I will always reiterate the story of my weekly church going, relatively conservative best friend who follows next to no politics. he called me 2 weeks after she was nominated to tell me he was voting for Obama, why, "because Palin scares the """" out of me, she is bat"""" crazy and twice as dumb". You can try to wrap her up however you want, any intelligent conservative knows she's a red herring who could somehow sneak through a primary but WILL NEVER GET ELECTED. heck, GWB had far more heft. And the newsweek picture, why, did she not pose for that picture? Was she told that picture wasn't going to be published? What are you talking about, maybe you should seek some mental help, you sound like you need it, paranoid fantasies much. Please stop talking and go get the help you desperately need, you're embarrassing yourself? Did she not pose for the picture, was it a candid or something, where's the issue, nutcase? Come one buddy, instead of just continuing to be a frothing at the mouth nutcase, bring some heft to your argument. but you can't, because it's all paranoid fantasy.
brian, Obama did so little that someone asked him to write his autobiography a few years out of law school, good luck selling that one.
I think Palin is going to burn out. Her current book tour is already showing what a liar she is and she is to shallow to ever take any tough policy questions.
Her answer to everything is parrotting GOP talking points.
It would be a blast to see the fight but I don't think even conservative repubicans really want her sitting in the oval office.
She obviously has no self control and not the type we want holding the nuclear football!
Soemone mentioned that Obama would have a 50 state sweep, I think Palin could win 5-10 states in the south and places like Utah and Ok unless she totally made a fool of herself in a campaign and scared the hell out of the country.
Anyway i don't see her getting the GOP nomination but if she wants to run I wouldn't rule out a third party run.
Dems will vote for her the same way repugs voted for Hillary in the primaries
>>That said, all dems need to register in the repub primaries and vote for Sarah, she will be the best thing for the Democrats since Obama.
In our state, you don't register by party. On the day of the primary, I could walk in and vote (R) without any questions or paperwork. And voting for Palin in the R primary on the premise that she would be the weakest candidate is something that a lot of people would consider.
The Palin true believers are blind to her limitations. To them, any criticism is just the media ganging up on her.
the Democrat hatred for her because she did not abort her Downs Syndrome child
"Come on GROG, do you really believe that crock of crap?"
Yes, although it's not a crock of crap. The core of the hatred from the left stems from the fact that she believes in the rights of unborn human life, even if the baby has Downs Syndrome. It makes the liberals and neofeminists absolutely crazy.
Why would a woman endure a special needs child when she could have simply had an abortion? It was a terrible message to send to girls and women around the world, and the leftwing nut jobs are going to do anything they can to make her pay.
The core of the hatred from the left stems from the fact that she believes in the rights of unborn human life, even if the baby has Downs Syndrome
That is something entirely different than claiming people are mad at her for making a given choice. And she clearly did make a choice not to abort rather than just assumed it wasn't to be done. You don't get an amniocentesis test unless you are very seriously considering an abortion, unless you are entirely clueless, because the procedure itself carries about a 1/2% to 1% risk for pregnancy termination.
@Joel:
Evangelical conservatives are for all practical purposes incapable of recognizing when they are being fed lies; that is why they are evangelicals and conservatives in the first place. Plus they like hearing the same song (GOP talking points, Jesus loves your fat sorry ass, gummint and taxes they is the enemy) over and over and over again. It helps them learn the lyrics so they can sing along.
This is the wonderful thing about Palin running: She owns the 20% social conservative base, the 13% of "moderate Republicans" (corporate shills) cannot beat her, and the Independents won't vote for either of them in the primary. And Palin doesn't care because she makes millions off of the celebrity gained.
Nate's argument for Palin's victory is as solid as the arguments for the Giuliani juggernaut were in 2006 and 2007.
Palin isn't going to run. And if she did, she'd flame out in the first month.
brian said...
Probably cause Obama did so little, hard to get in trouble.
He was elected State Rep in 1997, and he indeed did stuff in those years prior to being a US Senator (which was largely taken up with running for President, that's the system unfortunately).
Jeff, Pollster.com finds an average gap in partisan ID of about +12 Dem. Fourteen points is well within reason. Pollsters are using a wide partisan gap precisely because the tarnished GOP brand has created a wide partisan gap in reality.
I'm a conservative, and though I like Palin, I don't think she's president material. That said, I can see her having a populist "Perot" type appeal that many liberals may be overlooking. I mean, I thought Perot was crazy, but sometimes people just want a straight-shooting outsider....which Sarah defintely is.
Nate:
1. Enthusiasm. People tend to see electorate through a one-dimensional lens, in which a fixed number of voters are trying to decide between two or more candidates. But that's not really how politics works, especially in primaries. Rather, the playing field is (at least) two-dimensional: people are not merely trying to decide whom to vote for, but also whether to vote at all. Because of the reach of her brand, Palin has the ability to engage the sorts of voters who might ordinarily stay at home. In the general election, that will include some voters who turn out to vote against her -- but that's less of a concern in the primaries...
7. There are virtually no moderates left in the Republican base. Although, there may be a significant number of independents voting in some of the primary states, which makes things marginally harder for Palin than in election where many independents were sucked into the Democratic primaries...
10. She gets new media; new media gets her. Conservative blogs love Palin, as do most of the shock jocks; they matter a great deal and may help Palin to overcome what I expect will prove to be a relatively shoddy traditional infrastructure.
Outstanding analysis! I would add a variable you touched on in the three comments above - conservative Indis. These are the folks who are bailing on the Dems in every reliable poll, shifted the overall Indi vote 2:1 to McDonnell and Christie and love outsider types. These are also half the folks in the Tea Party movement.
Palin is openly courting the Tea Party movement by name and doing her book tour in the heartland battleground states where most of these folks live. Moreover, the Tea Party movement is like the Deaniacs in that it communicates through the new media. As you observed, Palin is required reading in the new media.
This offers Palin an interesting coalition of conservative Indis and GOP voters which make up a majority in the GOP primaries and get her withing 10 points of a majority in the general election.
@Grog:
I am as liberal and Democratic as they come; and I don't care if she didn't abort her child. I know special needs children; both autistic and Down's. I am completely ambivalent on this point; although I would have recommended abortion, I see this as a woman's choice, not a mandate. Her choice may be deluded, but making all kinds of deluded choices is a right exercised by tens of millions of Americans every day, including me on many a day.
I hate Palin because she is a liar and a sociopath willing to put other people in physical danger to promote her own ends. She is a thief, a corrupt politician, and a con woman taking financial advantage of others.
GROG-
Her dilike by righties has absolutely nothing to do with her stance on abortion or her kid, it has everything to do with her basic incompetence and her the scary world view of a religious government that she promises.
brian said...
I'm a conservative, and though I like Palin, I don't think she's president material. That said, I can see her having a populist "Perot" type appeal that many liberals may be overlooking. I mean, I thought Perot was crazy, but sometimes people just want a straight-shooting outsider....which Sarah defintely is.
I see a huge difference here in that Perot was arguably smart and unquestionably a talented executive. His history in business was a very powerful resume. Palin just doesn't have anything like that. Her one big job with actual responsibilities ended in her quitting. That's not a good resume.
people just want a straight-shooting outsider
So lets unpack that. She very clearly lies like a sidewalk. So what does "straight-shooting" really mean?
Pan-
Resumes are overated. We just hired a president to fix our economy that never so much as ran a lemonade stand.
Plus, I think brilliance in a president is overated. I'd be happy if they spent their days chasing interns like Clinton rather than screwing up the healthcare system.
Your partisan potshots aside, there's little substance to your claims. We want someone at least competent enough to run your kid's elementary school. Perot had the folksy thing down pat, but that only worked on a national stage because he had proven himself to be successful. Why wasn't there more of a backlash at a billionaire basically trying to buy the presidency? Because it was obvious he hadn't made his billions on his charm and social maneuvering. But even with all this, Perot lost big. Even without his erratic performance towards the end of the campaign, he still couldn't convince the public.
So Palin is trying to win and she's missing a few of these key ingredients. Not only that, but she behaves in a way that actively turns at least half her viewers off. And she just does not have that competency, no matter how much you want to spin it, and this hurts her. Look at the polls, 70% of people saying she's not qualified to be president. Even among republicans only, that number stands at 44%.
You can compare her to GWB in her competency level, but at least he had finished an entire term as governor and part of another. He could at least point to that and say it showed his bona fides even though if you just listened to him speak you went away scratching your head. And GWB in 2004 had the advantage of being an incumbent president in wartime against a pretty lame kid opponent.
On the other hand, Palin has already spent her charisma in the McCain race. She was incredibly overexposed and quite willingly on her part. People had a chance to form a pretty solid opinion of her years before she would be running for president. Not so with GWB.
So, I really don't see it. I'm skeptical she can even win the primary with such high unfavorables even among republicans.
Interesting how Dwight, Bradford, and Tony C. calls her a liar and makes other accusations about her scary world view of a religious government that she promises or about her being a sociopath willing to put other people in physical danger to promote her own ends. She is a thief, a corrupt politician, and a con woman taking financial advantage of others.
But they don't back up their statements with any facts.
If she's a liar, why don't you call Obama a liar?
I've been around for a while. Have lived through three very frustrating and embarrassing presidencies -- Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II. With some more bad luck, I might get a 4th.
Carter wasn't exactly a "hit" but wasn't a bad man and has done more good in in his post-presidential years than any other modern president.
Nixon was an old-style Red Baiter and a crook. Reagan suffered from memory loss (not just selective but real -- I know more about Iran-Contra than he apparently did) while still in office, and was a better actor than a president (which isn't saying much). Still, he gave that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech, which was the highlight of his presidency. Bush II? Simply incompetent and took us into a needless war while sending the economy down the drain.
What would Palin do? I shudder to think. A reall Yahoo presidency?
EarBucket,
That's true, when all adults are surveyed, which for some reason ABC/Post thinks more relevant than LV or even RV. But even if you set the bar low like that, a 14 point gap versus a 12 point gap in a big deal - a four or five point swing in his popularity. Furthermore, the 12 point Pollster.com average includes regular POST polls, which always seem to have this same 14 point margin. Most other polls have the gap between 6 and 10 for all adults, and considerably closer for LV and RV. "All adult" surveys are Dem spin, and this one is particularly bad. Or do you actually think that there will ever be a 14 point gap between the parties on the day on an election? Hell, it was only 7 in the blowout of 2008.
Numbers 5 (media love), 7 (radicalized base), and 8 (establishment doesn't have a say) strike me as the most important. The rest merely stem from the advantages built into those 3 reasons. Otherwise a good list, and you've moved more towards believing she might make the primary (but no chance she can win the general).
Oh GROG, you are such a cute troll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQB4ks6y_zs
http://hnn.us/articles/54293.html
Palin is a misguided religious nut who wants to go back on the founder's beliefs.
Democrats are so cute when they try to understand Republican inner-party politics and machinations. It’s like they are mid-western grain merchants just undocked at the port of Hong Kong circa 1923 and trying to make sense of it all.
Take it from a very active, conservative Republican. Palin will never be the nominee. Sure, there are many, many conservatives who admire and love her. That doesn’t mean that they will support her in a race against Obama in 2012.
Most Republicans are looking for a non-controversial, even boring, candidate with bona-fide conservative credentials who could appeal to a broad spectrum of independent-leaning voters.
Someone like gov-elect McDonnell in Virginia.
Think Mitch Daniels or John Thune…not Palin or Gingrich or Cheney.
No Republican will have the media-love of Obama but I think that a lot of people will definitely give a steady, true, even-keeled alternative a look in 2012, especially if the unemployment rate is above 10% still and Obama is perceived as someone who over-promised and under-delivered.
I believe Nate is just teasing us. He's playing with dialectics to prove you can make any argument seem plausible through layered application of selective logic.
On the off-chance he's really serious, I think the only way Palin could get the nomination is if establsihment Republicans have decided Obama is such a massively prohibitive favorite that they might as well indulge the base just for this one cycle. Like letting the kids go nuts and fingerpaint all the walls in the house because next week you're going to start repainting and install new carpets.
However, I doubt the Republicans who actually run the party would want to indulge the base to that extent. I get the feeling most of the serious, power-broker Republicans don't even LIKE their own base all that much.
And they don't like that Sarah Palin up there, also.
@Walker: You may be right about where "most Republicans" would like to find a candidate (I include here a large segment of Republican-Independents). But the question Nate is addressing is how can one of those candidates get the nomination -- can he beat Palin?
I like the reference to the "victimization" mindset of Palin and Co. I wrote a blog entry a couple of days ago about that.
http://www.tomoveanation.com/2009/11/rant-palin-and-martyr-narrative.html
Walter Mondale as an example of an "extremist"? Boy, I guess we long-time liberals are really out of date. And if "progressives" like Nate think pro-labor and full employment are the planks of extremists, I guess the DLC has even taken over what currently goes under the rubric of "progressives." No wonder common sense policies like single payer plans aren't even debated. Personally I'd rather actually fight for things worth fighting for than be "triangulated" by my own side. Good thing today's "progressives" weren't around in the 60s. We'd never have Medicare, Voting Rights, Head Start and all those other "extremist" positions.
@DK: add the following to your list of Progressive ideas. The Peace Corps and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(BTW/ imagine if Obama has originated the Peace Corps idea -- oh my, they'd be branded the internationl corps of brownshirts. And our media would lap it up.)
Jeff, awesome point on the hyper-bogus ABC/WP poll with the 14% (and growing) partisan gap!!!
Why doesn't Nate get all "Strategic Vision" on these polls??
@Walker: I agree with you about those suspect polls. I hope that now that Nate is apparently back from his road trip to the West Coast he hones in on some of the "mainstream" polls.
fillistro:
We'll see soon enough.
But they don't back up their statements with any facts.
The list is extensive. Stupid lies, too. Blurting out falsifiable, sometimes patently innane, falsehoods is a rookie mistake she's commited a number of times. "All of them."
Dwight:
She has read "all of them" that her staff clipped for her. Next "lie"?
Most Republicans are looking for a non-controversial, even boring, candidate with bona-fide conservative credentials who could appeal to a broad spectrum of independent-leaning voters.
Someone like gov-elect McDonnell in Virginia.
I absolutely despise the guy, but Palin could learn a lot from McDonnell. They have a lot of shared views, and yet McDonnell doesn't scare off independents and dems on the same level as Palin.
I'm hoping she's too distracted with her book tour to figure that one out.
Doesn't she support teaching the "controversy" of evolution and creation in public schools? Yikes! Frankly, anyone who supports this should immediately be disqualified from the Presidency. What other science will they ignore because it supposedly (although not according to that cutting edge lefty socialist church... you know, the Roman Catholics?) clashes with their largely ill-defined religion?
I know she supports the banning of books she doesn't care for. In fact I believe it was one of her very first acts as mayor.
Seems to me to be a typical "small government" Republican (meaning that economic issues go unregulated while social issues go heavily regulated). Talking about liberty while mandating religious instruction in schools and removing books from the library? Gotta love it!
Further back in this thread Chris made the most valid point of all... (incredibly, when it comes to Sarah Palin this is what constitutes a valid point...)
She is beginning to lose her looks. After 18 months of stress and frenetic activity, you can see the toll on TV close-ups. Her face is thinner and there are new deep cheek grooves running from nose to mouth. The perky freshness is gone.
This would not matter in any other venue... she is, after all, an attractive woman approaching 50, and in damn good shape. But Republican men tend to objectify women, and female looks are vital to them. They can't help it, it's deep in their DNA. Sarah Palin is nothing without her looks.
Would Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin be heroines among the Republican base if they were fat and homely? Will Sarah Palin still be a force when she's increasingly haggard and wrinkly, and all that's left is her wide-ranging grasp of policy and her vision for America?
Gotta disagree with you on that one, filistro. You kind of disproved your point with the Bachmann/Coulter/Malkin example. Of the three, I really don't see the first two as being very attractive at all. I think Malkin is quite attractive, but not every white male finds asian faces attractive.
Richard:
She believes in Creationism but never banned any books. At least you got one right.
filistro:
I would vote for Sarah Palin even if she looked like Margaret Thatcher. Even if she lost, the GOP would lay claim to running the first female for President. Next up: Hispanic.
@filistro. Palin's campaign will be based on five simple concepts. Botox, facelift, nip-tuck, dye-job, ghost-writer.
See, Pan, the problem is you are not a Republican male.
Over in Freeperville they think Michelle Bachmann is a "babe," and they wax positively orgasmic over photos of Ann Coulter. (If she's holding a gun in the photo, they are, alas, quite unable to contain themselves. I'm forced to blush in maidenly dismay and avert my eyes.)
Granted they have a bit more trouble with Malkin, what with those slanty eyes and all, but yer wingnut Republican males are nothing if not cosmopolitan. *g*
Charles said: I would vote for Sarah Palin even if she looked like Margaret Thatcher.
I know you would, dear. That's why we love you.
There is a difference between actually banning the books and wanting to. It is a fact that she inquired about it several times, and after being rebuffed, asked for the resignation of the librarian involved.
As for Creationism, I of course support the right of people to believe whatever they want. But teaching it in schools is pretty heavy-handed. I mean, if we taught everything in the Old Testament, we'd have some really warped kids on our hands.
Richard (page 237 "Going Rogue"):
"The book-banning story flared quickly and didn't completely fizzle out even after lists of books I'd supposedly wanted to ban circulated on the Internet. The list included books that hadn't even been published at the time. It was one lie after annother --- from rape kits to Bridges to Nowhere. All easy enough to disprove if the press had done its job . . ."
At 10:03 AM, you said:
"I know she supports the banning of books she doesn't care for. In fact I believe it was one of her very first acts as mayor."
That is a lie. Have you read HER book?
Pages 217-219 set forth her reasons for "debating the merits of evolution in the classroom."
She admits she inquired about the procedures to do it. I never said she did it or had an actual list.
And she actually did it before she even became mayor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/politics/animal/main4430259.shtml
But I only asked to ban books as a rhetorical question! And then fired the librarian! And then people got mad so I rehired her!
Cool.
Charles,
Has it occurred to you that Palin has had ample opportunity to explain her actions, and that opportunity has been squandered?
In other words, it doesn't matter what she says in her book, no one is interested in her excuses any longer. She wanted to know about getting rid of a book she didn't like, and when the librarian wasn't down with that, she wanted to get rid of the librarian. No one really cares how she now justifies it in her book.
Palin's basic approach in "writing" this book is to address each and every supposed lie or distortion so that when the issue comes up in future she can simply say "I addressed that lie completely in my book. I don't have anything to add."
Of course she "addresses" without really answering the issues about the book banning, troopergate, clothesgate, consulting with the family about whether to accept the VP nomination, babygate, etc. But she now has her official "response and can try to deflect or dismiss any further efforts to discern the truth of the matters.
Have you read HER book?
Nope. However the question is why you unquestioningly believe everything written there.
Charles said...
Dwight:
She has read "all of them" that her staff clipped for her. Next "lie"?
LOL
Wait; "Pages 217-219 set forth her reasons for 'debating the merits of evolution in the classroom.'"
She actually does support the current guise of the Creationism fraud, "teaching the controversy"? Well damn, there goes the one thing I did give her credit for....
Really? You're speculating on contenders for the 2012 election? I know you're primarily an election site, but your internet niche is as a place I can go for reliable information, not pundit drivel. Of course pundit drivel can be entertaining so go ahead, mix it in every once and a while, but this Palin bet thing is dragging on.
Well, I care about the truth regardless of when it comes to light (if anyone can dispute what she's written, let me know). She was muzzled during the campaign and this really is her first substantive opportunity to respond. I doubt that you people had the same criticism about Bill or Hillary's books.
Pages 72-73:
Her very first "official act" as Mayor was replacing the MUSEUM director, not the librarian.
Thank you, Don.
Yeah. It is a FACT that Palin inquired about the process. It is a FACT that the librarian did not seem amenable and was later asked to resign, fired, and rehired.
How does that list being fake refute any of that? I mean I'm glad she didn't go that far, but it doesn't bother you that she went as far as she did?
Charles said...
"It was one lie after annother --- from rape kits to Bridges to Nowhere. All easy enough to disprove if the press had done its job . . ."
Haha--choosing two examples of genuine criticism. The rape kit thing was true (though I don't think it was by Palin's request), and whether she took an undeserved amount of flak for it or not, it happened on her watch. At least own that.
And on the Bridge to Nowhere, hey maybe you can give her credit for reversing herself and opposing it once it became unpopular, but she trumpeted her initial opposition to it in the campaign, when in fact she supported it. For all the trolls out there, THAT is a lie.
"I know she supports the banning of books she doesn't care for. In fact I believe it was one of her very first acts as mayor."
This one is partially true, actually, but not entirely. It wasn't an "act" as she didn't actually ban any books, but she did seek to find out whether she COULD ban books with her mayoral authority, which is frankly disturbing in itself.
And I gotta echo some other posters here--advocating that a "controversy" between biology and mythology should be taught in biology classrooms should automatically disqualify one from becoming POTUS, or holding any office that affects education policy.
WV: Ovexcing-- Oh, vexing it is to argue with Palin worshipers.
Remember when Palin openly complained that the McCain campaign should not be conceding and she volunteered to campaign there? Well, Palin is launching her book tour at the Grand Rapids Barnes & Noble, with 1500 waiting for her in freezing temps:
It was 4:55 when the first cheer went up.
“Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!”
And that’s 4:55 this morning when the thermometer had dipped into the 30s. But the 500 or so people in line didn’t mind the sleepless night or the cold.
“What she represents is what we’re standing in line for,” said Robin Case, 44, of Traverse City, who set up a chair and sleeping bag at 9 p.m. Tuesday to make sure she got the chance to meet Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate. “She’s real and she’s standing up for what we believe in.”...
By 7 a.m., the line had swelled to more than 1,500 people as Barnes & Noble employees wrapped orange wristbands around Palin fans' wrists.
Pamela Lincoln, 50, of Canton borrowed her father's snowmobile pants and boots, set up a chair at midnight and figured she was the warmest person in line. It's been a year of firsts for Lincoln. She attended her first tea party in Plymouth this summer and today was her first overnight foray for a signature.
"This is someone who is going to be iconic in the history of the United States. How could I not come?" she said. "We have to get politically active and take the country back."...
Karen Hughes, 53, and her 12-year-old daughter Katie Hughes made the three-hour drive Tuesday from Ortonville and got in line at 3 a.m.
Karen Hughes was a longtime Democrat who switched parties to vote for McCain and Palin, “And I don’t think I’m going back.”...
In a Facebook posting, Palin explained her decision to make Michigan the first stop on her tour.
"I’m starting in Michigan, and you’ll understand why when you read the book. Last year, I made a promise to the good people of Michigan that I would be back, and now I’m keeping that promise," she said. "Michigan is near and dear to my family’s heart! Our eldest son, Track, lived with a great host family there during his hockey days."
The campaign is on.
Richard:
No. Next question?
Bart DePalma:
I hope they factor enough time in between stops to not leave some still waiting in line out in the cold. They have to know that thousands will come.
Re: "Liberal Media" types rooting for her (so Obama gets it easier). I don't know about you, but I suspect most media types are like me - fairly conservative liberals. And by conservative I primarily mean risk-averse. Palin getting the nomination might make it easier to re-elect Obama, but it also puts Palin uncomfortably close to the oval office. If she can win the primary, she could win the general, and that would be a disaster for the nation far greater than George W.
Of course 4-8 years hence, it would result in great performance for Democrats, right?
Charles:
I doubt Palin's signing hand will hold up for all the folks who will be mobbing her book store stops. To give everyone something, Palin should give some short comments outside to each crowd and have a few hundred signed books for every stop for those who could not get in for a personal signing.
Shhhh, Neil. Please see REVERSE Operation Chaos above.
You think Walter Mondale was extreme? What about him was extreme?
Bart:
Sounds like a good plan. You and I should be on her advance team ;)
I know you would, dear. That's why we love you.
SNAP!
Hat's off m'am for the finesse.
Mr. Universe:
I thought you were leaving and not commenting here anymore? Yet another liberal LIE.
This whole reverse operation chaos thing is tiresome. Is your memory really so short that you forgot how well that worked in defeating Obama?
Charles said...
At 10:03 AM, you said:
"I know she supports the banning of books she doesn't care for. In fact I believe it was one of her very first acts as mayor."
That is a lie. Have you read HER book?
Look at that, Charles does my work for me. So in order to know what the truth is, I have to read her book? because every other resource is fault but only her book will tell me what really happened? Are you a parody of a rational Republican? Is this just your schtick?
Who said anything about defeating Obama in the early Dem primaries?
Charles:
Sounds like a good plan. You and I should be on her advance team ;)
I have generally limited my involvement in politics to comments because I have not had much to celebrate since Reagan and then Gingrich in 1994. However, the Dems have crossed a line with this unabashedly socialist government. They have gone from irritating to genuinely dangerous. Its time to get personally involved to reverse this mess.
I am working with our local Tea Party group and looking for a conservative Presidential candidate to work for. Palin is awful tempting, but she has to show me she can govern as well as campaign. Obama is exhibit one of the dangers of electing incompetent rock stars to the Oval Office.
Her book is HER side, finally. The trier of fact, in this case the American voters, will have the last word.
"Republican Establishment to neuter her may backfire"
Shouldn't that be ""Republican Establishment to SPAY her may backfire"?
...not sure which one of us is being sexist now.
"unabashedly socialist government"
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so. I understand where you are coming from on (some of) your concerns, but that doesn't make this statement true.
I mean, I didn't see "Abolish Capital" bill yet, and I'm pretty sure the "Workers of the World Unite!" resolution hasn't even been introduced. Do we even have a proletariat? If we do, they're probably voting Republican, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Bart said: I am working with our local Tea Party group and looking for a conservative Presidential candidate to work for.
Do you have a short list, Bart? Say, 3 or 4 names?
I'd be very interested in what those names are.
This whole reverse operation chaos thing is tiresome. Is your memory really so short that you forgot how well that worked in defeating Obama?
Thank you, Pan, for calling out the plagiaristic troll.
I have been investigating starting my own blog, however, and I think I actually might pursue getting Palin on the primary ballot. Let Limbaugh and crowd see how it feels. Maybe get some legislation passed to prevent that kind of tampering.
Plus, I grow weary of shouting the same arguments at the obtuse here in the comments section. Might be time to look for a broader audience and stop suffering the ignorance of fools.
I think Mule may have been right the other night. I've been looking at these comments for some time and thinking to myself how pointless it has become.
Congrats, trolls. The bridge to nowhere is yours.
Are you a parody of a rational Republican? Is this just your schtick?
Yes, he's like the text version of Stephen Colbert. Enjoy! :)
P.S. It appears that Palin's ghostwriter knowns a thing or two about soft-pedaling Creationism in schools stance. Of course there is another way to thwart the evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor species shared with modern primates. Rather than burying it under an avalanche of Bible quotes just fall back on ignorance, you can backfill the void with Bible quotes later. :/
"The book has proven remarkably prescient."
"The work should be read not only as a great work of literature, it has much to teach us for this millennium."
"An excellent political classic."
"Everyone interested in political thought or modern history needs to read this book. Its influence is incalculable."
What's this referring to? The glowing appreciation for Sarah Palin by the public? More excerpts from Bart DePalma's letters to Penthouse?
No, these are modern reviews of the Communist Manifesto by casual readers. Just because a book has a large following doesn't make its assertions true.
Richard said...
BD: "unabashedly socialist government"
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so. I understand where you are coming from on (some of) your concerns, but that doesn't make this statement true. I mean, I didn't see "Abolish Capital" bill yet, and I'm pretty sure the "Workers of the World Unite!" resolution hasn't even been introduced.
The Dems have moved from FDR style government social insurance and regulation to seeking to affirmatively direct large swaths of the economy for the purpose of redistribution. I call this socialism. You are free to call it whatever you want. However, I would think that we can at least agree that this represents a fundamental change from past Dem and American politics.
Do we even have a proletariat? If we do, they're probably voting Republican, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
I am pretty confident that working folks will throw the bums out in 2010 and very likely 2012. However, Obama and the Dem left congressional leadership still have months to impose pretty major mischief. That is why the Tea Party movement lobbying our representatives to so vital until we can finish the job at the polls.
filistro said...
Bart said: I am working with our local Tea Party group and looking for a conservative Presidential candidate to work for.
Do you have a short list, Bart? Say, 3 or 4 names? I'd be very interested in what those names are.
Right now, Palin and Pawlenty. However, I am sure there will be more coming out of the woodwork after the 2010 elections.
bart, now how can we take you seriously when you don't have any clue what theories you're accusing the Dems of. nothing proposed by this current administration is in any form socialism by its definition. You could, based on your numerous complaints and conjecture, accuse them of being Statist, but you would know that if you had a clue. Good try though, Rush's talking points are seeping in well, I guess you have that.
Mr U...
They're not "trolls", they're a vital part of the American tapestry. If we live in an echo chamber we can forget that there are people (millions of them) who truly believe Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born socialist, and Sarah Palin would make a wonderful president, and removing a pinhead-sized clump of undifferentiated cells from your body is "murder."
They BELIEVE those things. And every one of these people has a vote.
Their beliefs can seem incomprehensible to us but their votes are real, so liberals who want to maintain political power and shape the future of the country are wise to engage these people and try to understand them, rather than turning away in disgust.
Besides, if you leave I will miss your wit. You make me laugh every day. :-)
Richard said...
"BD: "unabashedly socialist government"
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so."
When he says socialist, he doesn't mean what a normal person would mean by that word. "Unabashedly socialist" is Bart's shorthand for any government that does anything other than cut taxes for the rich, persecute gays, control women's bodies, fill prisons with black people, and hand out guns to everyone else.
BTW anyone who deviates from this agenda in any way is either a "RINO" or the "urban left."
In fact, on a previous thread Bart offered a definition of socialism that would include every single government in human history.
John said...
Are you a parody of a rational Republican? Is this just your schtick?
Nothing of the sort. He's the Troll of the Year nominee.
Ben Ringold said...
"Republican Establishment to neuter her may backfire"
Shouldn't that be ""Republican Establishment to SPAY her may backfire"?
No. Neuter is the gender neutral term. Etymologically shocking, I know. The more masculine version of spay is castrate, though it's actually technically correct when applied to either gender. But somehow we just can't see Bob Barker saying "Have your pet spayed or castrated."
Spot on with Palin's support from the media, use of new media...
The intensity and support from the religious right will be helpful to Palin but McCain got the nomination without that and W when asked about the movement, replied, "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000....there is no movement"
2012 is a long way off and I think a fresh face (Thune or Mitch Daniels or someone else) will benefit. The GOP men are not PC and at some point...Huck or Romeney (probably Romney) will fire at her and Palin is going to struggle on substance.
It will be the classic attack in a multi-candidate field.
Romney may not win but he's got big bucks and is ruthless so he'll crash and burn and take on Palin. And open it up for someone else.
Huck has to do something bc they are battling it out for the same folks.
The stronger BHO is the more likely it is for Palin to win the nomination but the odds are long.
@filistro
Thx (sniff)
No, Dwight, I am not a text version of Stephen Colbert. I believe every single word I've posted.
Bart, nobody could "come out of the woodwork" who is not presently known. Whoever your nominee will be, it's a sure bet that we already know his/her name.
I'm trying to get a read on where you are politically. So... not McDonnell? Not Duncan Hunter, or Bobby Jindal, or Eric Cantor? Why not?
John said...
bart, now how can we take you seriously when you don't have any clue what theories you're accusing the Dems of. nothing proposed by this current administration is in any form socialism by its definition.
Nationalization of GM and Chrysler, quasi nationalization of the TARP banks, Obamacare plan to direct all private health insurance and gradually replace it with government health insurance, using cap & tax and government green jobs programs to destroy the fossil fuel industry and replace it with government subsidized and thus controlled green energy industries.
This accounts for between a quarter to a third of the economy.
Good try though, Rush's talking points are seeping in well, I guess you have that.
Actually, most of the conservative commentariat are offering a simplistic argument that increased spending = socialism, which is not true. What Obama has done and is proposing is far more invasive and dangerous.
No, this is just a distraction. Sarah will not be the nominee. She´s complety devoid of even the smallest amount of gravitas.
filistro said...
"I'm trying to get a read on where you are politically. So... not McDonnell? Not Duncan Hunter, or Bobby Jindal, or Eric Cantor? Why not?"
Hunter maybe, but I doubt the teabaggers will support the rest of that list. McDonnell ran as a moderate (the ultimate sin), Piyush Jindal ain't from around here if ya know what I mean (wink wink), and that Cantor fella's a J-O-O.
:)
filistro said...
Bart, nobody could "come out of the woodwork" who is not presently known. Whoever your nominee will be, it's a sure bet that we already know his/her name. I'm trying to get a read on where you are politically. So... not McDonnell? Not Duncan Hunter, or Bobby Jindal, or Eric Cantor? Why not?
You are describing some of the woodwork. There are three folks in the discussion right now - Palin, Huckabee and Romney, with Pawlenty just entering the conversation because he is making campaign moves.
Normally, I would limit my field to the major candidates because the GOP usually does not go with outsiders. However, the conservative rebellion is sick and tired of the status quo and is looking for outsiders, so 2012 may be different.
Jacob... I suspect that when all's said and done, the Republican primaries and the Presidential election this cycle are going to be... (though nobody will ever say it out loud)... all about abortion.
I can just feel the momentum building toward that, and the rise of Sarah Palin within the party is merely another confirmation. It's probably a good thing since the country needs to have that particular bloody battle, resolve it somehow and move past it before real political porgress can be made.
It will be ugly, though.
@Grog:
Geez, how many times must we go over it?
Trooper gate and other scandals in Alaska prove her corruptness, including charging the state for living in her own house. Only an idiot would believe her bit about the clothes for her and her husband on the campaign trail with McCain.
Her book is full of lies backed up by documentation; there are plenty of fact checkers doing that, and McCain himself has called her on a few (she did NOT pay for her own vetting; by law she was required to reimburse the campaign for legal work they did on Trooper Gate.)
Plus she was accusing Obama of pallin' around with terrorists, remember that?
My own personal take (centrist-leanings politically): Have so far read numerous sections of the book. It might as well be titled: "The Palin Way: Revisionist History, Vol. I" or "Complainer-In-Chief: Its Not MY Fault!". Alright, one more: "Insights And Insults: The Cuda Bites Back!" Not even her ghost helper could smooth it out into a mature piece that this centrist could take seriously and connect with as fact-based reason. It lacks in maturity to such an extent, it nearly reads like a Junior-High note from one backstabbing friend to another.
But hey, as far as preaching *cough, cough* 'truth' to the right-wing choir (pssst, its the lefties fault!), then this work nails it. I'll give it that. It'll even have its rabid fans, I'm sure. And I'm confident it is exactly what they want to read. It will even give them talking points to recite to the rest of us in future discussions. It won't be long before everyone is bombarded with, "Thats not true!! [Insert Chapter/Verse Here] of the 'Palin Bible' proves it!"
But for me: I'll wait for a third-party version of the so-called facts to come out before I slide any Palin memoir over into the Non-Fiction, Non-Dissing section. In the mean-time, Palin-ites get to enjoy their new 'Gospel According To Sarah'. So its all good.
@Bart
Normally, I would limit my field to the major candidates because the GOP usually does not go with outsiders. However, the conservative rebellion is sick and tired of the status quo and is looking for outsiders, so 2012 may be different.
I brought this up a few weeks ago in another thread, asking when the last time a "nationally unknown" (for lack of a better term, I think you know what I mean though) candidate ended up winning a major party primary. The answer turned out to be Wendell Wilkie in (I think) 1940. From my brief perusing of the wikipedia article and cited sources, the main reason he succeeded in gaining huge grassroots support (and whatever our differing opinions of the Tea Party may be, I think they would qualify as such) was that he brought something radically different from every other candidate in the field. Namely, the rest of the republican primary candidates were isolationists, a position that was becoming increasingly unpopular across the spectrum, and Wilkie didn't share this position.
So what is it that a nationally unknown candidate could bring to the table that would make them significantly stand out from all the players already on the field? I haven't yet seen an issue suggested that would be so uniting against the players already on the field. If you don't know for sure, do you have a guess?
Robert... I think a Republican candidate with a vision (and an array of specific plans) for uniting the country would have a big advantage... even in the primaries
Despite the howls of the teabaggers and uprisings in the "base", I think a huge portion of the country, even on the right, is genuinely hungry for an end to vitriolic partisanship and the feeling of a strong America pulling together again.
The fact that this candidate would be opposed from his right flank would only strengthen his appeal to moderates and indies.
Hint: this candidate would NOT be Sarah Palin :-)
@Bart
Trsut me my friend as an ex indian I know what Nationalization is. What Obama is doing is not nationalization. You keep saying it but it is not.
First, The banks were bailed out on Republican watch not Democratic. The only thing that this administration has done is enforce that if you are going to take government money then you have to follow government rules on pay. Not business pay. And all the banks that gave back the money are free to do what they want with their pay structures. Which is sad. But no US army is walking into the banks, no accounts are being seized.
As to GM and Chrysler. We already have 10+% unemployment. What should the government do ? Let these behemoths go under and push unemployment even higher ? These were not profitable companies that have been seized for the greater good of the state. These are companies that hire a lot of people on the brink of disaster.
They are doing what any sensible government (not driven by ideology) would do. Break it up so that a smaller stronger company can survive.
But seeing your own reading into a) socialism and b) illegal aliens vs. non resident aliens, these are concepts way above your understanding.
Dwight said:
You don't get an amniocentesis test unless you are very seriously considering an abortion, unless you are entirely clueless, because the procedure itself carries about a 1/2% to 1% risk for pregnancy termination.
To suggest this is so absurd it is beyond laughable. Unless you are "entirely clueless" you would know the rate of miscarriage for a normal pregnancy after 16 weeks without an amnio test is also about 1/2% to 1%.
What's your point?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
This mirrors almost perfectly the situation in Britain in the early 80s.
An extremist government (this time left-wing, rather than right-wing) had brought the country to its knees economically, and was swept from power by a charismatic, non-traditional figure promising a change from politics as usual (a woman, Thatcher as opposed to African-American Obama).
The 'Loony Left' wing of the ousted Labour Party becomes even more dominant in opposition and decides to elect as leader someone with extremist views who panders perfectly to the base and is deemed unelectable by everyone else (though doddery socialist intellectual Michael Foot was about as far from Palin as can be imagined).
In the meantime the few remaining moderates in the Labour Party split off to form their own more moderate party (still waiting for that bit to happen here) and in the next election the extremist Labour Party is CRUSHED despite a deep recession and
humungous unemployment.
The Labour Party is out in the wilderness for 17 years and only gets back into power after it finally gets its act together and elects a charismatic moderate (Tony Blair) as leader.
Robert:
I am unsure we are really talking about "nationally unknown candidates." Rather, there may be known candidates who are simply not part of the presidential discussion this far out. I am not going to speculate who they might be. Its a waste of time.
The Tea Party folks are looking for a movement conservative from outside of Washington. Right now, Palin best fits that bill. Pawlenty and Jindal are largely unknown outside of their states unless you are a political junkie. Neither Romney or Huckabee are really movement conservatives and thus do not excite many Tea Party folks.
DEM_in_Virginia said...
@Bart Trsut me my friend as an ex indian I know what Nationalization is. What Obama is doing is not nationalization. You keep saying it but it is not.
How precisely does one become an ex-Indian? That is like me becoming an ex-Italian/German/Irishman?
In any case, I believe one can safely say that the government nationalized a company when it owns it, appoints its board and directs it. Welcome to government motors.
"How precisely does one become an ex-Indian?"
I got US citizenship. I identify myself as an American. Hence the ex-Indian. Make sense ?
When every worker in Government Motors is a Federal Employee and the CEO is a GS 15 (or higher) employee then it will be Nationalized. Till then, the government just owns a state in the company. And one that can be hopefully be reduced with time. And a number of governments own a lot of stake in a number of well run (and successful) firms all over the world. It is not such a strange concept.
DEM_in_Virginia:
A grand total of eight (8) banks failed last year. Well over 100 banks have failed this year.
Your comment about no moderates left in the Republican party and "where many independents were sucked into the Democratic primaries."
I think a dynamic that no one is thinking about is that with like only 20% of people now calling themselves Republicans, that probably means the independents have become more conservative, as it is now composed of a lot of ex-Republicans. However, this does not mean any less support for the Democrats, but could explain why more independents are swinging to the right or Republicans side. Nate, I would love to see you investigate this thought a little more.
@GROG
An amniocentesis test creates an additional 1 in 200 or so increase on top of that normal background pregnancy loss. That is why the procedure was initially, before the ultrasound screening test for Down's was developed, only performed on women with very high risk factors. Now it's typically only done [for Down's] when an ultrasound screen comes back positive and you are seriously considering acting (abortion) on the amniocentesis results.
I am not going to speculate who they might be. Its a waste of time.
I agree, speculation on who is certainly pointless. I'm still trying to figure out what this unnamed person's signature issue would be.
Like I said, Wilkie succeeded almost entirely because he was the non-isolationist in a field of isolationists. You're using the indefinite term "movement conservative". Maybe this means something more specific to you than to me, but I'm trying to figure out a specific issue.
From my side, while I see varying positions between the republican candidates currently being discussed, I don't see an issue that they have such a consensus on that someone else could Wilkie their way in on. If candidate X showed up tomorrow and started telling conservatives that pro-choice was the way of the future, and all the conservatives jumped on board, that would be analog to what Wilkie did. Obviously that's not going to be the issue, but what do you replace pro-choice with that still fits? I can't figure out any issue that there's enough consensus on for a Wilkie-ing to occur.
I'm not trying to throw a wrench into your works or anything, I'm just not seeing any specific issues being named that are analogous to Wilkie's opposition to isolationism.
@Charles
And all of them have been allowed to fail (none were nationalized) in a very orderly fashion (by the evil Fed nonetheless).
What we need is a system that works great for regular banks to work for Wall Street as well (as Bernanke suggested). Unfortunately that also means a bigger role for a regulatory body.
I'm still trying to figure out what this unnamed person's signature issue would be.
"An actual contender in a general election"?
Charles said...
No, Dwight, I am not a text version of Stephen Colbert. I believe every single word I've posted.
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed!
but of course, that does not mean any of what you say is true ...
Just the obvious, if Palin has started her 2012 campaign w/her Going Rogue fiction tour. 1) in her case she has started it wayyy too early, because the more the spotlight shines on her, the more her persona dims as her poll #s continue to tank! and 2) less is more, one either exudes confidence/intelligence/sincerity or ... phoniness/shallowness/pettiness/lack of intelligence/sour grapes!
You bet'cha!
She ain't running in 2012, except to the bank ...
Well there is no unnamed contender in all likelihood, I think the point was that it's not out of the realm of possibility.
But I think you could create a list of about a dozen names that would have a 99% certainty of including the 2012 GOP nominee. Here's one for example:
Palin
Huckabee
Crist
Gingrich
Daniels
Jindal
Romney
Pawlenty
Barbour
Petraeus
Thune
McDonnell
Slow on the trigger on responding to this, but...
filistro: "female looks are vital to them. They can't help it, it's deep in their DNA."
Not that deep. It's a recent, and unfortunate, change. If we rewind to the 1920s, the "conservative" woman is the homely, hardworking farmer's wife who's had five children, handmakes Christmas presents, and is a fine cook. Very Puritan, in the good sense. The city-living "liberal" woman is a socialite vamp obsessed with cosmetics, fashion, and society parties who reads pretentious foreign literature and ignores any responsibilities.
That said, you're right that this has been flipping in the past ten years or so. I remember reading about some idiot activist talking about how all beautiful women were conservative, and clearly King David only fought the Philistines because he was on a quest for the booty of conservative and beautiful Princess Michal?! (Rather than obedience to God / King or anything more standardly conservative... and it's not like David was particularly loyal to Micah anyway.) Dang, can't find the link at the moment, but it definitely caused me to roll my eyes.
Bart DePalma said...
John said...
bart, now how can we take you seriously when you don't have any clue what theories you're accusing the Dems of. nothing proposed by this current administration is in any form socialism by its definition.
Nationalization of GM and Chrysler, quasi nationalization of the TARP banks, Obamacare plan to direct all private health insurance and gradually replace it with government health insurance, using cap & tax and government green jobs programs to destroy the fossil fuel industry and replace it with government subsidized and thus controlled green energy industries.
This accounts for between a quarter to a third of the economy.
Good try though, Rush's talking points are seeping in well, I guess you have that.
Actually, most of the conservative commentariat are offering a simplistic argument that increased spending = socialism, which is not true. What Obama has done and is proposing is far more invasive and dangerous.
SORRY FOR THE CAPS ALL, but this needs to be stated as such. AGAIN, YOU POSTED THIS WAS A SOCIALIST ADMINISTRATION. THEN YOU RESPOND WITH TRIPE ABOUT TAKING OVER CERTAIN PRIVATE INDUSTRIES BY THE GOVERNMENT. EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT STILL ISN'T SOCIALISM BUT STATISM. It is so annoying how people think they can just start throwing words around with no regard for there meaning. I mention the talking point not because of your differences with conservative orthodoxy but due to the fact that both you and them have attempted to redefine the definition of a word in the same manner.
Robert said...
I see what you are getting at now. Your guess is as good as mine what issue might come to dominate the 2012 campaign.
If the election were held today, it would be a referendum on Obama, specifically the Porkulus, deficits, Obamacare and unemployment.
I suspect 2012 is still likely to be a referendum on Obama because we will still be suffering from high unemployment, spending and deficits. Afghanistan could have come to the fore again. If Obama loses that war, he is toast. Even so, the conservative candidate would be well advised to lay out a 2-3 idea alternative to give folks something to vote for rather than just giving them something to vote against.
@Robert
How about nationalizing Wall Street ?
It goes against the grains of every Republican principle, but it is the nation's sentiment.
John:
Statism is only half of the socialist equation - directing the economy - without the other half of redistributing wealth.
The nationalization of GM and Chrysler is socialism because the wealth was redistributed from the secured bond owners of these companies to the UAW and the government.
The quasi nationalization of the banks is socialism because the government is using that power to resistribute the income of employees and coerce the TARP banks into giving away mortgage equity owned by the bank shareholders to deadbeat borrowers.
So on and so forth...
"They're not "trolls", they're a vital part of the American tapestry. If we live in an echo chamber we can forget that there are people (millions of them) who truly believe Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born socialist, and Sarah Palin would make a wonderful president, and removing a pinhead-sized clump of undifferentiated cells from your body is "murder."
They BELIEVE those things. And every one of these people has a vote."
I only believe one of these three things (the last one). My favorite politician right now is Bart Stupak. It's a shame that a pro-life Democrat would not stand a chance in a national election, because he would get my vote. If in 2012, I have to choose between a pro-choice Democrat or a tea-party type Republican, I just might be voting third party for the first time.
Charles said...
No, Dwight, I am not a text version of Stephen Colbert. I believe every single word I've posted.
That's the spirit! Stephen Colbert never steps out of character either.
How about nationalizing Wall Street ?
It goes against the grains of every Republican principle, but it is the nation's sentiment.
It would probably be a Wilkie-esque enough issue, but I have a hard time believing that it would garner widespread grassroots conservative support.
But, what exactly would nationalizing Wall Street entail? Do you mean nationalizing all the banks? Nationalizing the stock exchange (I don't even know how such a thing could exist)? Wall Street is kindof an amorphous idea.
wv: expel. I'm sure there's a clever joke here, but I don't have time to figure it out.
Oprah's Palin interview was the highest rating she has had in 2 years - 8.7 household rating and 13 share.
I have no doubt that she will run for president in 2012, but I don't think she will run to win. She likes being adored, and knows that being president (or even nominee) would open her up to a world of huge expectations and criticism. She'll ride that wave until there's a way--any way--out (too hard on the family, timing isn't right, distraction for the Republican party, etc.) Then on to more book tours and talk shows.
@Robert
I agree this is too vague. I would say nationalizing the exchange but that would get you nowhere, so maybe nationalizing the investment banks ?
Disclaimer: This is not what I would propose as a good idea. I am just playing at what a radical idea that goes against the grain of conservative thinking, but can still be embraced by the people would look like.
Maybe it would be abolish the Fed. It is a simple rally cry. But maybe too esoteric ?
I think if you're gonna nationalize the investment banks, you may as well just propose a single federal investment bank. If we're gonna say that these banks as independent entities are failing so bad that we need to take over, then you might as well go all the way, seize their assets and toss em into a business equivalent to DARPA. DARPA may not be financially responsible, but at that point, it's the model to take after, and it's logically consistent with the theory that independent entities aren't as good at investment as larger more centralized entities. If you agree with that line of thinking.
@Robert
Makes sense. But that is too radical an idea. No matter how much everybody hates Wall Street, no one is going to accept a single nationalized investment unit. How do they do it in China ?
Maybe abolish the Fed ? But that goes along the lines of small government so not really radically different.
Of course you could also argue that in 2012 Sarah will no longer be a coming from nowhere candidate.
Robert (in reference to the comment about Wilkie being the last "out of the woodwork" GOP nom):
I think it's a mistake to look to history on this one, though. The internet and the 24 hour news cycle have changed the game of politics in ways not seen for centuries before. We need a good solid 100 years of history after these changes to make any really good predictions.
Dwight:
Is there anything I can do to prove to you I actually believe what I am posting?
I think it's a mistake to look to history on this one, though.
It may be a mistake, but it's the only way I know to come up with a fact based theory on how a relative unknown could come out ahead in a race with established players.
Logically though, I still think it makes sense. Even in todays climate, candidates often need something to set themselves apart, even if you're an established player. The least successful candidates are usually the ones who can't distinguish themselves from the competition. A new comer would therefore have to have something especially distinctive in order to dominate the field.
This is what Obama did with his promises to break from the past. None of the other established dems could play that card, and even though he was not unknown, it was something that helped him distinguish himself from the pack, and get enough attention to come to the forefront.
I really don't believe that the internet or 24 hour news cycles have changed the basic rules of popularity contests that have been in play for centuries.
Charles said...
Is there anything I can do to prove to you I actually believe what I am posting?
I would accept a signed letter, on professional letterhead please, from the psychologist or psychiatrist that diagnosed you.
But really it's not necessary, not even all that relavent to me. Real or not, intentional or not, you are entertaining.
I think it's a mistake to look to history on this one, though.
It's never a mistake to look to history. But it is a mistake to expect history to repeat. History doesn't repeat, it rhymes. :)
Bart DePalma said...
Oprah's Palin interview was the highest rating she has had in 2 years - 8.7 household rating and 13 share.
~~~~~~~~~~
Americans can't take their eyes off of/love a train wreck ...
Getting America's attention has a very low bar as Paris, Lindsay, Britney will tell you.
All fame is fleeting, best to cash in while you can.
.... and I believe Robert has a good bead on the correct Banana, Fanna, Foe, Felection.
Paris, Britney, and Lindsay have never written a book about being Governor and VP candidate.
Paris, Britney, and Lindsay have never written a book about being Governor and VP candidate.
Palin never had an internet sex tape, multiple #1 singles, or...what did Lindsay do to get famous again?
Crack, lots and lots of crack.....and Disney movies.
Or maybe she was Cranking it? I'm just not up on the trash-girl scene.
P.S. The cynic in me says it was a way to break free of Disney's clutches and also establish her street cred, but maybe got out of hand?
You know that comment kinda hurts Robert. I think out of that three Lohan was (probably still is) the one with the most actual talent.
Does anyone else want to discuss the actual thread topic?
P.S. The cynic in me says it was a way to break free of Disney's clutches and also establish her street cred, but maybe got out of hand?
Sir, you couldn't possibly be suggesting that Lindsay was...Going Rogue...could you?
I do agree though that Lohan actually can act. But I'm pretty sure Spears can sing. I'll just leave Hilton alone.
Oh well, I guess I just have to wait to see whether Nate wins his bet. Thanks, everyone, for pledging to vote for Palin in the primaries.
Robert, Dwight:
Sorry. I figured it was implied that the meaning of my statement was "I think it's a mistake to look to history for a better than random prediction on this one, though."
You don't need to look at history but just at the present to know that a presidential candidacy is expensive. To fund such a thing or convince others to fund it for you, you either need to be rich (in which case you're not going to be a nobody), a celebrity (ditto), or a currently or previously elected politician (once again).
This is a far better indicator than simplistic measurements like "the tallest candidate usually wins", "the candidate with the longer name usually wins" (24-8-2 in the last 34 elections), "if the american league wins the series then the republican will win" or "as Delaware goes, so goes the nation."
A week is a long time in politics, and 2012 is a century. Besides, most reasonable people have seen the damage an underachiever can do
Pan, I agree with your distinction. Extrapolated correlations like the ones you describe in the second paragraph are far too common, and are of course absolutely ridiculous. But even the historical example of Wilkie doesn't dispute your first paragraph, prior to running in the GOP primary, Wilkie was (I think, going off recollection instead of looking it up) the Attorney General for NYC. He was a national unknown.
I agree that it's unlikely that a complete nobody is going to be able to sweep in to take the lead, but I'm interested in figuring out what factors are needed to allow a relatively unknown person to rise to the top in such a short period of time.
They are not sure she can overcome the liberal media bias and the Democrat hatred for her because she did not abort her Downs Syndrome child, or that she's a mother of 5, or that she's attractive, or that she's a woman, or that she's not a feminist loon, or that she believes in strong national defense, or that wants to drill for oil, or that she believes in God.
Ha ha ha, this is some excellent humor. And man you must be really old or hard up if you think she's attractive. I think her biggest problem is she just isn't very smart and even a lot of Republicans realize this.
"...prior to running in the GOP primary, Wilkie was (I think, going off recollection instead of looking it up) the Attorney General for NYC. He was a national unknown."
Part of the reason Willkie was so unknown is that he is the only major party nominee in history who never held elected office, a command position in the military, or a cabinet office.
That's something incredibly unique in American history. There just aren't many people who fit that description who would be considered likely Presidential candidates, and would thus need a distinguishing issue to make it.
Predicting a Willkie-type nomination would be like predicting in 1989 that an obscure Texas billionaire would win 19% of the Presidential vote 3 years later. It can happen, but you won't find the person looking in conventional places.
Sarah Palin will probably run. From my interpretation of history and the psychology of primary and caucus voters, Palin is a long shot, and here's why:
Both Democrats and Republicans have a hierarchy and both want to nominate winners. But their heirarchies and interpretation who is a winner are different.
The hierarchy for Democrats is this: 1. Incumbent President, 2. VP, 3. Governors and Senators.... Thus, Demorats tend to nominate the incumbent president or the incumbent or last Democratic VP. Their hierarchy is based on political office position.
The hierarchy for Republicans is 1. Incumbent President, 2. An extension of a president (child of a former President holding major political office), 3. The second place finisher of the last major GOP nomination contest... Thus, most likely, the next GOP nominee is Romney or Huckabee since they essentially ended up tied for second place in 2008.
For Democrats, you can't be a winner once you run and lose. If you run and lose, your only redemption is to become VP. Since 1972, when the modern day primary system began, Jesse Jackson is the only non-VP candidate that did better on a subsequent run than on his or her first try. Moreover, losing is evidence that your ideas have been rejected and often times Democrats are looking for new ideas.
For Republicans, doing reasonably well especially getting second place is a badge of honor. to Replicans, winning second place is building good experience and character. Generally, if you are not a fringe candidate, a second place finisher is promoted to the top of the hierarchy once the incumbent Republican President doesn't run anymore.
The Democratic hierarchy is less obvious than the Republican hierarchy because when no president or VP are running, all the senators and governors are of equal length. The confusion is added because the Democratic inclination not to go for someone who has lost before almost guarantees that their nominee will be a fresh face.
In conclusion, Huckabee and Romney are in the 2012 presidential race to win. The other GOP candidates are in it to set themselves up for 2016. The question is whether Palin can finish in second place and become the frontrunner in 2016. I suspect her angry persona is a turnoff to the majority of GOP primary voters. This will make her much more like Pat Robertson in 1988 rather than Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. In 2016, if Joe Biden decides to run, he's the most likely nominee, otherwise, a relative unknown will be the Democratic Party nominee in 2016.
So, Gov. Palin as the losing VP candidate is NOT in the hierarchy? It doesn't matter that she has a bestseller on the topic and over one million "fans" on her Facebook page?
Only ONE person responded to my comment, in which I asked questions, which disappointed me because not only did I post early on, but I really wanted to hear people's response to my questions. So I'm reposing my post.
"I have a few questions that I would love Nate and the readers to answer but the main one is how does the bet work regarding when Palin decides to run, what if she jumps in as late as Fred Thompson does, or even later, when does the transaction occur?
Also, I was curious in a general election how Palin would perform in alaska (because she resigned)?
Speaking of her resigning, isn't that going to be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problem if she runs. If I recall correctly, she didn't have a very good reason for resigning, can someone remind me why she resigned? I mean, Romney will run ads saying once a quitter always a quitter.
While Palin will run, it won't be that easy for her to win, she has virtually no executive experience, no legislative experience, she doesn't seem very politically savvy I just can't see her running a good campaign. And while she's doing good in Oprah interviews, I don't think she'll do well with Gibson Round 2.
The media thinks she's a joke, Tiny Fey will come back and get better ratings. If she makes one mistake, the media will blow it out of proportion."
Post a Comment