Assuming Palin runs, how likely is it that she could win?

[spunkymuzicnote]

Because frankly, the idea of that woman running the country scares the hell out of me. I know she's being all non-committal about it right now but lets face it, she's got something up her sleeve. Someone who can't even admit that they're wrong about a simple fact (the Paul Revere and the British thing for example) makes me very nervous. Everyone makes mistakes, but the least she can do is admit the flub and not try to cover it up. And while we're on the subject, why does she draw people to her in the first place? I just don't understand it. Someone please enlighten me because every time I see her I cringe. I'd like to know if my worries are real.

[Recovering Republican]

The correct question is, if the economy doesn't get better, which Republican are we going to be stuck with.

Ultimately, the 2012 election will be a referendum on the economy, particulary unemployment.

If it's over 9%, the Republicans could run the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.

It it's below 6%, Obama is probably going to have an easy time of it.

More than likely, it's going to be somewhere in between. The higher it is, the harder time the President is going to have.

Democrats do have an answer, and it's "How can we influence how this turns out" Since there is no race for the Democratic Nomination, Democrats are free to vote in Republican or Open primaries, and can vote for someone who might be more sensible.

The thing is the Hard Right is also feeling its oats right now. A point where they could call Newt Gingrich a "RINO" because he once admitted the science indicates that AGW is probably real was passed a long time ago.

Now, personally, I don't think Palin is serious about running this time. I think she is trying to refurbrish her brand name, but she hasn't done the things serious candidates do, like organize local supporters in the early states.

For your other question, why does she attract people. I think a lot of people like her because she seems like one of them. Very middle class background, just a regular person who hunts, worries about her kids, goes to church, etc. We like to think our politicians are "Just like Us", but by definition, they can't be.

[River Hippie]

More likely than many here realize. Here in Central Derpistan the hate for the Kenyan Usurper is strong and the love for St. Sarah of Wasilla is strong. She's a strong conservative Christian woman with mainstream American values and common sense solutions to problems caused by Socialism. If she says Paul Revere fired warning shots and rang bells... well, that's what happened.

You betcha!

[Frank]

Originally Posted by River Hippie

More likely than many here realize.

Palin's negative rating in polls is quite high amongst Republicans, and even amongst self-identified Tea Partiers. Her following is going to Bachmann, who, while equally batshit insane, at least can speak coherently and has knowledge of the issues.

[Fear Itself]

She could get nominated, but I don't think there is a chance in hell of her getting elected. She does not represent Middle America as much as she represents Batshit America, and as soon as she gets asked about the Ryan budget and privatizing Medicare, she loses the over-50 crowd.

[JimH52]

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.

[TehBearJew]

She got lucky when McCain was desperate during his campaign and did something drastic. She should thank her lucky fucking stars that she's now a rich brainless used up media whore on tv now and just step the fuck aside. Imma gon get me some saltines. Hooyah!

[Finagle]

Originally Posted by JimH52

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.

Well, what are Bachmann's chances? I realize that she's batshit crazy, but she seems to be batshit crazy in the ultra conservative fundamental religionist way that appeals to the same base that has catapaulted Palin to fame. On top of that, she has fund-raising abilities and a law degree that grants her an intellectual credibility that Palin sorely lacks. Given the paucity of really strong candidates this year, I could see her name coming up if her handlers can rein in her tendency to make awe inspiring gaffes.

[JimH52]

Originally Posted by Finagle

Well, what are Bachmann's chances? I realize that she's batshit crazy, but she seems to be batshit crazy in the ultra conservative fundamental religionist way that appeals to the same base that has catapaulted Palin to fame. On top of that, she has fund-raising abilities and a law degree that grants her an intellectual credibility that Palin sorely lacks. Given the paucity of really strong candidates this year, I could see her name coming up if her handlers can rein in her tendency to make awe inspiring gaffes.

If I remember correctly, the last odds on her winning were 1000 to 1. Maybe if she stayed on her meds?

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Finagle

Well, what are Bachmann's chances? I realize that she's batshit crazy, but she seems to be batshit crazy in the ultra conservative fundamental religionist way that appeals to the same base that has catapaulted Palin to fame. On top of that, she has fund-raising abilities and a law degree that grants her an intellectual credibility that Palin sorely lacks. Given the paucity of really strong candidates this year, I could see her name coming up if her handlers can rein in her tendency to make awe inspiring gaffes.

I still can't imagine she'll win, but I think she'll do pretty well, if for no other reason then if a voter wants to go for a formally moderate ex-governor, they'll have three candidates to choose from. If they want a more consistently conservative candidate who isn't totally fringe (like Paul or Cain), Bachmans pretty much the only choice.

IIRC, the GOP primary will have fewer "winner take all" races then in '08, which might draw things out more then in past years, and keep Romney or Pawlenty from knocking one or the other out early, and thus let them keep dividing the more moderate vote, which would also work to her advantage.

So I'd certainly give her better then 1:1000 odds, maybe something like 1:30 or so.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

The correct question is, if the economy doesn't get better, which Republican are we going to be stuck with. ...

I think if the economy stays tanked or gets worse, Palin still wouldn't win against Obama. Someone like Romney or Pawlenty might, but those media gotcha questions like, "How are you today?", will end up with Palin exploding or imploding or both.

Seriously, the only way she wins is if she doesn't open her mouth AT ALL. And I don't thinks she's smart enough to do even that.

On edit, I think it's nearly 50/50 that she could win the nomination if she runs, which is the best possible outcome for Obama.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I think if the economy stays tanked or gets worse, Palin still wouldn't win against Obama. Someone like Romney or Pawlenty might, but those media gotcha questions like, "How are you today?", will end up with Palin exploding or imploding or both.

Seriously, the only way she wins is if she doesn't open her mouth AT ALL. And I don't thinks she's smart enough to do even that.

On edit, I think it's nearly 50/50 that she could win the nomination if she runs, which is the best possible outcome for Obama.

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

Let's look at the e-mail thing. The Press went over 24,000 e-mails trying to make her look like a jerk, and she actually came off looking smarter and more sympathetic.

Now, if we were Europeans, where they actually take education seriously, yeah, she'd be a non-starter. Unfortunately, we are Americans, where 45% don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

[Boyo Jim]

Thank you. It is indeed appropriate for you to apologize to me for having such an opinion.

If I wasn't clear enough in my post, my point is that Sarah will have some form of melt down hissy fit during the course of the campaign, and will be seen (more clearly than now, if that's possible) to not be emotionally stable enough for the job.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

Let's look at the e-mail thing. The Press went over 24,000 e-mails trying to make her look like a jerk, and she actually came off looking smarter and more sympathetic.

Now, if we were Europeans, where they actually take education seriously, yeah, she'd be a non-starter. Unfortunately, we are Americans, where 45% don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

To clarify, there were 8,000 emails that nobody has been allowed to see (redacted by former Palin employees), and which probably contain the bloody meat.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by JimH52

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.

The problem is that Palin's been polling quite well lately, and Bachmann's yet to break out of the mid single digits.

Here are the national polls of Republicans I could find so far this month. Other than the CNN poll, they're all from pollingreport.com:

CNN, June 3-7: Romney 24%, Palin 20%,..., Bachmann 4%.
USA Today/Gallup, June 8-11: Romney 24%, Palin 16%,..., Bachmann 5%.
Fox News, June 5-7: Romney 23%, Giuliani 13%, Palin 12%,..., Bachmann 4%.
Reuters/Ipsos, June 3-6: Palin 22%, Romney 20%,..., Bachmann 6%.
Quinnipiac, May 31-June 6: Romney 25%, Palin 15%,..., Bachmann 6%.
ABC News/WaPo, June 2-5: Romney 21%, Palin 17%,..., Bachmann 3%.

I just don't see how Bachmann can do much damage to Palin's standing in the race anytime soon, by announcing or by any other means. But as long as Palin is (or appears to be) running, she sucks up most of Bachmann's oxygen.

[joebuck20]

Palin's biggest fan turns against her. John Ziegler says she can't beat Obama:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/th...-palin-i-know/

Be warned however, that article is pretty self serving.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

The correct question is, if the economy doesn't get better, which Republican are we going to be stuck with.

Ultimately, the 2012 election will be a referendum on the economy, particulary unemployment.

If it's over 9%, the Republicans could run the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.

It it's below 6%, Obama is probably going to have an easy time of it.

I keep hearing this argument and I think it's oversimplistic at best and more probably dead wrong.

The unemployment rate is over 9% right now. If the election were held today, Obama would be re-elected.

The objection to this is that the Republicans haven't yet chosen a candidate or started the campaign. True, of course. The money will flow to the nominee and the ads will pound Obama daily.

And yet... Obama has been pounded daily for over two years. And the Democrats, now in disarray and fumbling around, will get to concentrate their message in a billion dollars worth of campaign support. That campaign will actually improve once a Republican nominee is chosen. No candidate is well-liked or has broad support even within the party and each one has huge negatives already that are certain to be exploited.

In addition, the demographics are highly favorable to the Democrats. More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012.

This demographic advantage is largely dissipated because of the Electoral College, with the Democrats likely to have huge majorities in a few states but have very close races in swing states. That makes the race closer than the raw totals would indicate.

The economy will be a huge factor in the election. But Americans hate to turn out a sitting president without a strong rationale. That the economy is still what it is today is not that rationale. Almost every economist is predicting some upturn by November 2012 as well.

There is essentially no chance that maintaining the current unemployment numbers will lose the presidency for a generally popular president waging a campaign against an opponent starting out with no broad support. It really doesn't matter who that candidate is. Palin has less than essentially no chance because her negatives are gigantic and her base keeps shrinking. But the same argument can be made for Romney.

Campaigns are filled with unexpected events and a large unexpected event can change everything overnight. (see Weiner, Anthony) At this moment, however, there is no reasonable way to predict a Republican win extrapolated off the current situation. This isn't a prediction about the future, though, because I don't know any of the variables. It's just saying that your extrapolation makes no sense to me.

[Chimera]

I say, let's wait until some of the Derp starts to hit the national campaign and actually be scrutinized.

Let's kill Medicare! There goes the elderly vote. The same people you rallied last year on the false claim that Obama was trying to merely damage Medicare.

Let's kill any Government service that can be privatized Sure, just wait until the cost estimates start rolling in and people start to really understand what they have to lose.

Let's cut taxes! Hey! Let's inflate the deficit even more!

Let's cut entitlements! Oh wait, you mean grandma's social security?

Let's cut onerous government regulations and oversight! You mean like Energy and Food safety programs? Meaning more bad drugs, more tainted food and more oil, coal and nuclear accidents?

All this shit sounds great to the uneducated when they can assume that it won't affect them other than by maybe lowering their taxes, or it hits their buzzword bingo card (courtesy of Fox News). The reality is much harsher.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

It's hard to say with certainty that Palin is hurt by making a fool of herself time and time again, but the opinion polls of her show pretty clearly that she's destroyed any chance of being a serious candidate.

Take this June 7 ABC/Washington Post Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

Almost 2/3rds of all Americans say they definitely would not vote for Pailin and and 42% of Republicans said they definitely would not. More than 60% of those polled said they consider her unqualified to be president.

If someone wants to imagine some other reason that more than 60% of Americans consider her unqualified thats fine, but it seems clear to me that it's because of the things she has said and done.

In a head-to-head matchup with Obama Palin trailed by 17 points, worse than any other hypothetical GOP candidate in the poll.

[furt]

She's certainly got plenty of negatives, but the "it's utterly impossible" line is nuts.

The flip, side of her negatives is that her base is sizable and fervent, strong enough that she'd be instantly be a top-3 candidate and stay there. If someone else implodes (you just know a Mitt Romney Sex Tape is out there somewhere), and it's too late for anyone else to get in, she could win the nomination. Not saying it's likely, but stranger things have happened.

And should she win the nomination, the strategy is a simple one. McCain/Palin lost to Obama by 10 million votes in 2008; assume that that margin is cut in half because of the economy, etc. to more typical margin of about 5 million. If First Major Party Presidential Nominee Palin can attract one-tenth of the eligible-but-didn't-vote-in-08 women to support her on the basis of gender it's a dead heat.

Again, not saying it's likely; but it's not hard to construct a plausible scenario.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by furt

She's certainly got plenty of negatives, but the "it's utterly impossible" line is nuts.

The flip, side of her negatives is that her base is sizable and fervent, strong enough that she'd be instantly be a top-3 candidate and stay there. If someone else implodes (you just know a Mitt Romney Sex Tape is out there somewhere), and it's too late for anyone else to get in, she could win the nomination. Not saying it's likely, but stranger things have happened.

And should she win the nomination, the strategy is a simple one. McCain/Palin lost to Obama by 10 million votes in 2008; assume that that margin is cut in half because of the economy, etc. to more typical margin of about 5 million. If First Major Party Presidential Nominee Palin can attract one-tenth of the eligible-but-didn't-vote-in-08 women to support her on the basis of gender it's a dead heat.

Again, not saying it's likely; but it's not hard to construct a plausible scenario.

The scenario you constructed isn't remotely plausible though. You cut the margin she lost by when on the bottom of the ticket in half when in fact her negatives have gone way way up since she lost. In the recent ABC/Washington Post poll I quoted earlier she would lose by SEVENTEEN points in a hypothetical matchup against Obama. If the same number of people vote in 2012 as in 2010, that would be a margin of 22.5 million votes. Is that plausible? I don`t know, but it's a lot more plausible to use a recent poll than arbitrarily cutting her last margin in half - when her negatives have actually increased massively.

Also, remember that women are MUCH more likely to have a highly negative opinion of Palin than men are. There's simply no reason to believe women would support her on the basis of gender when all the evidence shows women are actively opposed to her much more than men are.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Thank you. It is indeed appropriate for you to apologize to me for having such an opinion.

If I wasn't clear enough in my post, my point is that Sarah will have some form of melt down hissy fit during the course of the campaign, and will be seen (more clearly than now, if that's possible) to not be emotionally stable enough for the job.

Okay, guy, you can try to be cute, but frankly, I haven't seen Palin have a meltdown.

I've seen her take a lot of hits from the media- most of them fair, a few below the belt, and suck it up. And frankly, talking about emotions sounds a bit sexist, doesn't it?

Palin SHOULD be a non-starter because she doesn't have the intellect for the job, but then again, neither did Bush, really. And I voted for the idiot twice.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

It's hard to say with certainty that Palin is hurt by making a fool of herself time and time again, but the opinion polls of her show pretty clearly that she's destroyed any chance of being a serious candidate.

Almost 2/3rds of all Americans say they definitely would not vote for Pailin and and 42% of Republicans said they definitely would not. More than 60% of those polled said they consider her unqualified to be president.

If someone wants to imagine some other reason that more than 60% of Americans consider her unqualified thats fine, but it seems clear to me that it's because of the things she has said and done.

In a head-to-head matchup with Obama Palin trailed by 17 points, worse than any other hypothetical GOP candidate in the poll.

I've seen a lot of politicians declared dead and make come-backs, so I'm not sure this is very telling.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I keep hearing this argument and I think it's oversimplistic at best and more probably dead wrong.

The unemployment rate is over 9% right now. If the election were held today, Obama would be re-elected.

The objection to this is that the Republicans haven't yet chosen a candidate or started the campaign. True, of course. The money will flow to the nominee and the ads will pound Obama daily.

But here's the thing. We aren't talking about holding the election right now. We are talking about holding the election in 17 months. 17 months more of 9% unemployment, there are going to be a LOT of angry people out there.

Remember, Bush-41 had a HUGE lead after the first Gulf War, but the drip-drip-drip of bad economic news finally undermined him.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I've seen a lot of politicians declared dead and make come-backs, so I'm not sure this is very telling.

Have you seen a lot of politicians make come-backs after 2/3rds of Americans said they definitely wouldn't vote for them and that they think they're unqualified for office?

You say "declared dead" like it's just me saying it, or some pundit declaring it. This is someone who has been one of the country's most prominent public figures for years and huge majorities of Americans are saying they would never vote for her.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I've seen her take a lot of hits from the media- most of them fair, a few below the belt, and suck it up.

Are you kidding me? This is the same woman who threw a shitfit after Family Guy tossed out a throwaway line about her. The person who, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, tried to turn herself into the victim. One thing she has not done very well at all, is to "suck it up."

[Boyo Jim]

Just last week she was claiming that "What did you learn today?" was another media gotcha question.

[Implicit]

Originally Posted by furt

And should she win the nomination, the strategy is a simple one. McCain/Palin lost to Obama by 10 million votes in 2008; assume that that margin is cut in half because of the economy, etc. to more typical margin of about 5 million. If First Major Party Presidential Nominee Palin can attract one-tenth of the eligible-but-didn't-vote-in-08 women to support her on the basis of gender it's a dead heat.

Again, not saying it's likely; but it's not hard to construct a plausible scenario.

She was added to the McCain ticket to get those women voters, how well did that turn out? Women didn't like her in 2008 and they don't like her now.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Are you kidding me? This is the same woman who threw a shitfit after Family Guy tossed out a throwaway line about her. The person who, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, tried to turn herself into the victim. One thing she has not done very well at all, is to "suck it up."

Well, let's look at those two.

The throwaway line was having a retarded character say "my mother is governor of Alaska". Ha, ha, ha. Very funny, considering she has a child with Down Syndrome. (Seriously, who thinks the Family Guy is even funny?)

And yes, people were trying to blame her for a schizophrenic Marxist shooting Giffords. "Why look, she put a target on Gifford's district. THAT must have set the guy off."

Most REASONABLE people wouldn't consider these reactions above the pale, really.

Now, I don't like the woman, and I don't think she's qualified. But neither was Bush-43, other than his father held the job, and a lot of reasonable people voted for him.

The reason why Palin is such a threat is because to a lot of people, she feels genuine, as opposed to Romney who really hasn't done anything that hasn't been checked by an image consultant, a pollster and a focus group.

Once again, elections are decided by that 10% in the middle that votes based on who they'd like to have a beer with. Frankly, I'd rather have a beer with Palin than Obama.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Implicit

She was added to the McCain ticket to get those women voters, how well did that turn out? Women didn't like her in 2008 and they don't like her now.

Actually, she was added to the ticket because far right conservatives were unethusiastic about McCain.

But honestly, at that point, I don't think anything was going to save McCain. Not with the economy in the state it was and the unpopularity of Bush over the war.

In 2012, though, it's Obama's economy.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

Have you seen a lot of politicians make come-backs after 2/3rds of Americans said they definitely wouldn't vote for them and that they think they're unqualified for office?

You say "declared dead" like it's just me saying it, or some pundit declaring it. This is someone who has been one of the country's most prominent public figures for years and huge majorities of Americans are saying they would never vote for her.

Fuzzy, I recall in 1983, Richie Daley came in third place for Mayor running against Harold Washington and Jane Byrne. Then there was a series of embarrassing stories that came out about how badly he had run the State's Attorney's office of Cook County, how they were knowingly sending innocent men to prison. By 1987 his reputation was so trashed that he didn't even put his hat in the ring, letting Washington beat Byrne a second time. The fact he couldn't put together a sentence that sounded coherent didn't help, either.

Then he got lucky, Washington had a heart attack, and he ran in a special election in 1989 and won. He then won five more times, being the longest serving mayor in Chicago History (a title previously held by his Dad.)

I remember George H. Bush having an 87% approval rating and top Democrats were so scared of him that they opted out of the race. And then he got beat by an obscure governor from Arkansas.

The flaw of politics is that politics if fickle. Here's the scenario I see where Palin COULD win.

1) She beats Romney in Iowa and SC, giving her momentum. Romney throws a bunch of money at the problem, just like he did in 2008, but it ends up looking like a rich guy trying to buy the presidency... well, pretty much like it did in 2008.

2) The economy gets worse. Maybe there's a double dip in the recession. If that happens, the Republcians could nominate Satan and win.

The thing is, having posted on Right Wing Blogs, she is the only one who really gets their blood flowing. Romney, Pawlenty, they are all kind of "meh, who cares".

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

The throwaway line was having a retarded character say "my mother is governor of Alaska". Ha, ha, ha. Very funny, considering she has a child with Down Syndrome. (Seriously, who thinks the Family Guy is even funny?)

Not saying it wasn't in bad taste, but then again bad taste is pretty much Family Guy's stock-in-trade. And that was pretty mild, compared to some of the other stuff they usually do - see their bit on prom night Dumpster babies. Throwing a hissy fit over the joke just brought it more attention, and people like Seth McFarlane crave attention, especially if it's negative.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

And yes, people were trying to blame her for a schizophrenic Marxist shooting Giffords. "Why look, she put a target on Gifford's district. THAT must have set the guy off."

Most REASONABLE people wouldn't consider these reactions above the pale, really.

I agree that this was one of the few cases where she had a legitimate gripe against the media, but the "blood libel" crap was beyond the pale on her part. And using most of her response to play the "woe-is-me" card, when, you know, it was someone else that had been actually shot, and throwing out some red meat in a situation that called for introspection was just obnoxious.

And even if we agree that her reactions to both these incidents were justified, I don't see how that constitutes "sucking it up."

[Recovering Republican]

joe- Gee protecting your family from personal attacks...

Frankly, that's the kind of thing that makes her palatable to the red meat faction of the GOP. The one that gets upset when Obama goes around bowing to people.

Palin did herself no damage with the people she targets as supporters.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

joe- Gee protecting your family from personal attacks...

Frankly, that's the kind of thing that makes her palatable to the red meat faction of the GOP. The one that gets upset when Obama goes around bowing to people.

Palin did herself no damage with the people she targets as supporters.

Again, you said earlier that she was sucking it up. How did responding the way she did constitute "sucking it up"?

[Jas09]

I really don't think it's possible for her to even win the nomination. She will show well, no doubt about that - her base is fervent, and as Recovering points out, many of things she gets mocked for are actually assets with them.

But a fervent base only gets you so far. Lets say your potential path comes true (she wins in Iowa and SC - maybe with something like 25-30% of a highly-divided vote). After this, many of the marginal candidates will drop out, leaving something like Palin, Romney, Pawlenty (perhaps), maybe Rick Perry if he decides to run. By the time we get to Super Tuesday it will pretty much be down to Palin and not-Palin (and I think who that candidate will be is up for grabs). And that's where the high negatives in her own party kill her - there just aren't enough "second choice" Palin votes out there, IMO.

In the end I think she knows this, and is perfectly happy in her current role. But I know the OP was making the assumption that she decided to run. I could also see the above scenario be playing itself out with Bachman in the Palin role.

[a35362]

Never underestimate the woman's ego. I'll bet running for President is a lot of fun, especially at the start. Bunting and banners, people holding signs with your name on them, waiting for hours in the cold and the dark in New Hampshire, waiting to see you and to hear you speak; the crowds cheer, the bands play, the balloons drop. She surrounds herself with people who have no problem with who she is and try their best to do whatever she wants, who appear to take her seriously and tell her how wonderful she is. Aw, yeah, baby!

Oh, and a big fat Doper Welcome to the new Doper guests we have visiting us. Hope you sign up!

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Palin's biggest fan turns against her. John Ziegler says she can't beat Obama:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/th...-palin-i-know/

Be warned however, that article is pretty self serving.

And creepy. Wow. He comes off like a desperate stalker.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012.

Why do you think that?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

Why do you think that?

Because Obama will be on the ticket? There is a reasonable argument to be made that a large number of new voters showed up in 2008 specifically to vote for Obama (the so-called "Disaffecteds"). Whether they show up in 2012 will go a long way to determine the outcome, but certainly it's more likely that they'll show up with him on the ticket than in an off-cycle election.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012.

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

Why do you think that?

Originally Posted by Jas09

Because Obama will be on the ticket? There is a reasonable argument to be made that a large number of new voters showed up in 2008 specifically to vote for Obama (the so-called "Disaffecteds"). Whether they show up in 2012 will go a long way to determine the outcome, but certainly it's more likely that they'll show up with him on the ticket than in an off-cycle election.

Ignore me, folks (if aren't doing that yet you should get on it). I read "2010" but my brain interpreted it as "2008".

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Jas09

I really don't think it's possible for her to even win the nomination. She will show well, no doubt about that - her base is fervent, and as Recovering points out, many of things she gets mocked for are actually assets with them.

But a fervent base only gets you so far. Lets say your potential path comes true (she wins in Iowa and SC - maybe with something like 25-30% of a highly-divided vote). After this, many of the marginal candidates will drop out, leaving something like Palin, Romney, Pawlenty (perhaps), maybe Rick Perry if he decides to run. By the time we get to Super Tuesday it will pretty much be down to Palin and not-Palin (and I think who that candidate will be is up for grabs). And that's where the high negatives in her own party kill her - there just aren't enough "second choice" Palin votes out there, IMO.

In the end I think she knows this, and is perfectly happy in her current role. But I know the OP was making the assumption that she decided to run. I could also see the above scenario be playing itself out with Bachman in the Palin role.

I don't know, I've read a few people who think she's really planning to jump in

Let's put it more generally. If Palin doesn't run, then Bachmann will, and frankly, I'd be more afraid of Bachmann than Palin.

Romney's big problems are that he's a Mormon, (most Evangelicals consider the Mormons to be heretics, at best.) and that he's a guy with four mansions who got that way by corporate raiding and putting working folks out of jobs.

You see, this is the underlying secret of the GOP. The GOP is the party of the wealthy. Once you realize that, as I have, you realize that as a working guy voting Republican makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders (Hense, my nom de plume). But they talk about guns and gays and Jesus and keep a lot of working folks voting against their own economic interests.

All that said, they can't rub people's noses in it by nominating guys who don't at least APPEAR to resonate with the average Joe.

Also, I think you discount those early primaries. They have a snowball effect- No, wait, screw that metaphor, they have an effect like Lemmings. You win Iowa, everyone takes you a bit more seriously. They give you a second look.

Now, I think the reason why Huckabee wasn't the nominee in 2008 was because people who really run things looked at the populist leanings and said, 'Hey, he can spout the Jesus stuff without signing on to the tax cuts for the rich stuff and win! YIKES!" Democracy might break out, and the 1% that owns half of everything will realize- they actually only have 1% of the vote. That's why you had Limbaugh and the Club for Growth come down on this guy.

Palin could have a similar populist appeal, because really, she wasn't rich until she cashed in. She and Todd had very blue collar lives . And although he is a pathetic shill, Limbaugh can't get out there and now denounce her after praising her for three years.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Palin could have a similar populist appeal, because really, she wasn't rich until she cashed in. She and Todd had very blue collar lives . And although he is a pathetic shill, Limbaugh can't get out there and now denounce her after praising her for three years.

Not saying that they don't have a genuine blue collar background, but I've read that they made a lot of money from their fishing business, and were actually millionaires by the time Sarah ran for VP. They're not Mitt Romney-rich, of course, and what they had before is probably peanuts compared to what Sarah is making now by cashing in on her notoriety, but they've been pretty well-off for a while now.

[BrainGlutton]

A Palin-Obama debate would be a . . . deeply disturbing thing to watch. Regardless of one's politics.

[Exapno Mapcase]

When you're in the public eye before a campaign the money pours in. When you are a declared candidate running an actual campaign the money hemorrhages out.

There in two sentences is why Palin is not running.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Romney's big problems are that he's a Mormon, (most Evangelicals consider the Mormons to be heretics, at best.) and that he's a guy with four mansions who got that way by corporate raiding and putting working folks out of jobs.

You see, this is the underlying secret of the GOP. The GOP is the party of the wealthy. Once you realize that, as I have, you realize that as a working guy voting Republican makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders (Hense, my nom de plume). But they talk about guns and gays and Jesus and keep a lot of working folks voting against their own economic interests.

But you see, that's where you're wrong. You're forgetting the inherent stupidity of the average Republican voter.

They have no problem with someone like Romney getting wealthy by putting people out of their jobs. The REAL men, the REAL GOPer, the REAL rugged individualist wouldn't have lost his job. He would have stood apart from the pack and he would have been lauded for being superior to the losers around him.

Besides, of course your GOPer Six-Pack wants taxes reduced to nothing for the wealthy. Some day that'll be him, and he doesn't want his millions going to some damned welfare queen who was stupid enough to get outsourced by a true entrepreneur like Romney.

-Joe

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

When you're in the public eye before a campaign the money pours in. When you are a declared candidate running an actual campaign the money hemorrhages out.

There in two sentences is why Palin is not running.

You think she'd use her own money? She's dumb, but not as dumb as Meg Whitman.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

A Palin-Obama debate would be a . . . deeply disturbing thing to watch. Regardless of one's politics.

Why more disturbing than the Biden / Palin debate? There is no reason to think Palin would want to or could prepare better. She'd stick to canned talking points, just like before. Now, if she started to try to think on her feet it would be a laff riot, but they'd never let her do that.

[Onomatopoeia]

I repeat, Palin is not going to run.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Voyager

You think she'd use her own money? She's dumb, but not as dumb as Meg Whitman.

All competitive campaigns are in debt at all times. Every campaign cuts spending and lays off staff at some point. Every expenditure is scrutinized by the press. (Remember the $150,000 in clothing "scandal"?) Family expenses are paid out of the candidate's pocket. All major campaigns are torn between spending all they have to keep the public's attention but running out of money when it counts and not spending now and running the danger of not reaching or energizing voters. In today's world, spending is more important than ever.

As I understand it, Palin's current tour is paid for by SarahPAC and that won't be allowed during the campaign. To maintain the lifestyle, the convenience, the family presence, and the public eye will start costing millions. There are ways to get this money legally but every major candidate seems to end a campaign in debt that takes years to pay off.

Not her style. Winning the presidency is the only thing that makes it worthwhile. (Can anyone believe she hasn't looked at the sad spectacle of what John McCain has become?) She can't win. And she won't run.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

But you see, that's where you're wrong. You're forgetting the inherent stupidity of the average Republican voter.

They have no problem with someone like Romney getting wealthy by putting people out of their jobs. The REAL men, the REAL GOPer, the REAL rugged individualist wouldn't have lost his job. He would have stood apart from the pack and he would have been lauded for being superior to the losers around him.

Besides, of course your GOPer Six-Pack wants taxes reduced to nothing for the wealthy. Some day that'll be him, and he doesn't want his millions going to some damned welfare queen who was stupid enough to get outsourced by a true entrepreneur like Romney.

-Joe

I don't know if I'd call that stupidity. I think human nature is to think we are all better than we are.

Heck, I've been let go from jobs 3 times in the last 20 years. The first two times, I was back better than I was within a year, so yeah, I could see were your average Republican could have a righteous contempt for the "Welfare queen" who has been on the dole her entire life, because her mother and grandmother were on it.

This time, not so much, this recession is bad. Three years later, I haven't made a full recovery, and really, it's only a matter of time before this job is outsourced to Asia. I don't blame Obama, he was handed a real turd sandwich by Bush. I do fault him for not being a lot more aggressive on the issue, for toadying up to Wall Street, for maintaining the idiotic trade treaties that haven't worked to our benefit.

That's why I think a lot on the far right are not going to support Romney. When you get right down to it, he's a RINO with a weird religion that they don't understand who hires illegals to do his yardwork.

They figure that they can nominate Palin or Bachmann and probably beat this guy. And they might be right.

Heck, if unemployment is still at 9% in 2012, I might have a relapse.