You're looking for this man as your preferred candidate, obviously...
Posted on 04/07/2010 5:38:19 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
If Sarah Palin runs for President, then she will win the Republican nomination. The rally she is holding today with Michelle Bachmann is amazing, and Obama-like, in it's size:
More than 10,000 Republican faithful are expected to crowd into the Minneapolis Convention Center on Wednesday when Sarah Palin joins Rep. Michele Bachmann at a fundraiser and rally for Bachmann's re-election bid and the Minnesota state Republican Party.
Anyone who can draw 10,000 people to a rally in Minnesota--in early 2010, no less-- is formidable. In the specific case of Sarah Palin, it makes her virtually unstoppable.
National polling for the Republican nomination has consistently shown Palin in a roughly three-way tie with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. However:
1. Huckabee is unlikely to run, and his evangelical / born again base (virtually all Huckabee voters in 2008 were evangelicals) is a lot closer to Sarah Palin than they are to Mitt Romney. So, Palin will likely start ahead in national polls among declared candidates.
2. Romney's strength in 2008 was in caucuses, which are dominated by dedicated activists. Of the 11 states that Romney won in 2008, three were "home" states (MA, where he was Governor; MI where his father was Governor; and UT for religion), and the other eight were all caucuses. However, Romney isn't going to win many caucuses if he is facing a candidate who can draw 10,000 people to a rally in early 2010, not to mention what is likely a tarnished reputation among Republican activists after the health care fight.
3. Palin's grassroots strength will provide her with all the funding she needs, and also goes a long way to pre-empting any possible insurgent candidacy against her. This will especially be the case if Ron Paul runs again, since Paul can't win the nomination but would soak up pretty much all of the remaining grassroots energy on the Republican side.
4. Say what you will about Palin's ability as a campaigner, but if gaffes were going to make her unpopular among Republicans, it would have happened already.
If Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012, I have a difficult time imagining someone else winning the Republican nomination. While this is pretty good news for Democrats, as Palin polls worse against Obama than almost any other Republican (see also PPP polling), it is also pretty scary. A continually weak economy--which is very possible--could actually make her President less than three years from now.
LOL, you’ve posted far more slurs than anyone else here. And conservatism is not necessarily equal to Palin love.
I don’t have a favorite, but since the election’s almost three years off I have no idea who will actually be running.
Now this is ridiculous. Reagan has spent eight years has governor of the most populous state in the country. Palin has spent two years as governor of one of the least populous states.
If you makes claims like this (and Palin supports on this board seem prone to do so, since they will not admit to a single weakness of hers), how can we take anything you say at face value?
When one is replying to a low-rent, ignorant screed that was hatched in and then spent its whole life "in the gutter" of otherwise thoughtfully enlightened discourse, the entire diatribe takes place in that same craven gutter. We Palin supporters must stoop into your vapid gutter in order to speak with you on your own rationally-challenged level. So bite my greasey pucker, you unimaginative loser. Stop your little spoiled brat whining... you're embarrassing your kids. Again. Think of the children!
If you can't take the heightened atmospheric of a heated political discussion, go hang out on the QVC Shopping Network site or some wrinkled knitting enclave for tired old women, you pathetic crybaby.
"Oooohhh, oooohhhh, the mean Palin supporter said a bad word at me, oooohhhh, WAAAHHHHHHH!" Good grief, get a frigging life you spineless parameceum. If you want intelligent discourse, either grow a brain, or pull your pointy head out of your fetid stinkhole. N'kay?
;-/
:-)
If Huckabee and Palin were to run in primaries, they would likely split the Evangelical vote in such a way that Romney would get the nomination...magritte
You mean like this typical pro-palin argument....
"So bite my greasey pucker, you unimaginative loser"
Yep, really hard to compete with intelectual gems like that.
Haha, nice catch. But she topped herself in post #165.
But yet, here you are trying to throw cold water on Sarah Palin and her chances.
Typical response from someone who probably does have an agenda.
You're looking for this man as your preferred candidate, obviously...
You gotta be kidding me...!!!
No, rather I am keeping an open mind in a race where we certainly do not appear to have a perfect candidate.
Aren’t people here always complaining that the “party establishment” ignores them and nominates people like McCain? Maybe if they were a little more capable of engaging people who disagree with them (and sometimes even compromising) they wouldn’t be ignored.
“IOW...just like every other palinite of whom I have asked the same question...you don’t have an answer. As I said, being more qualified than the current office holder is not the same as being qualified. Her CV is better than his but not by much.”
I actually supplied a detailed answer as to how she will handle it - by selecting appropriate experts and letting them figure it out. Same as any President worth his or her salt.
Sarah has all the tools to do a fine job, whether you like it or not.
Nice job trying to deflect, but no cigar.
Like most trolls you have avoided serious debate and instead mocked and insulted freerepublic and freepers.
Even in this post you ignore JR's statement of why he was supportive of Governor Palin and instead, denigrated him and his web site as being meaningless and insignificant, while at the same time, elevating Daily Kos.
“Now this is ridiculous. Reagan has spent eight years has governor of the most populous state in the country. Palin has spent two years as governor of one of the least populous states.”
As I said, I don’t think Reagan did that great of a job as Governor of California. Your opinion may be different. Reagan also had a somewhat deserved reputation as a dimwit, unlike Sarah. After all, he did actually say: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Yet most folk still feel he made a good President.
The population of the state isn’t as relevant as the actual executive experience. Sarah dealt with many difficult and complex issues during her time as governor, and excelled. In no case does a time as governor give one significant foreign policy experience, but many fine presidents were governors first.
Sarah’s activities since leaving office show fine political sensibilities, she’ll make a great candidate and President.
Palin ‘12! :-D
I’m the one who’s avoided serious debate? You can’t question one tenet of the PalinBots’ dogma without having 10 of them instantly attack you here.
I’m happy to have a serious discussion about who our best prospects are (and in my mind no one stands out, so I’m even willing to entertain arguments that Palin is our best chance). But you can’t have a discussion with people who see her as the one and only Hope for America, and won’t even acknowledge her weaknesses.
____________________________________
Nope. Saying that she will hire the right people is not an answer. Saying that you believe she has what it takes is not a valid argument.
The question was/is, what exactly is there in her CV that would convince anybody that she can handle the toughest job on the planet...be specific about what she has actually done not what you "expect" her to do.
Oh no doubt gubernatorial experience is the best prep for the presidency, and in most cases I’ll take two years of that over four years of Senate experience, but it’s a shame Palin doesn’t have more experience with which to prove herself.
I’m not even saying I blame her for it—it may really be that Alaska ethics laws are so bad that her enemies could destroy her no matter what she did—but that doesn’t change the fact that it hurt her candidacy. Many people who may have been well qualified for the presidency have been denied it due to bad luck: for example, Jeb Bush’s 1994 loss meant W (almost certainly less qualified), not Jeb, was the Republican nominee in 2000; and Barry Goldwater had a great platform, but the time just wasn’t right for the country to be open to it.
Arguendo: “You can’t question one tenet of the PalinBots’ dogma”
wtc911: ““IOW...just like every other palinite of whom I have asked the same question...”
The two of you seem to like throwing infantile labels around, why don’t you inform us for whom you’re a “Bot” or “ite”?
Thanks in advance. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.