So, what if she IS running in 2012? (Palin)

08 July 2009 | self

[kevkrom]

Let's, for a moment, simply take for granted that Sarah Palin will run as a Republican for President in 2012 and win the party's nomination. (A similar exercise can be done for other candidates of choice, of course.)

The question that needs to be answered is: how does she win? That is, what is the path to 270+ electoral votes?

I think it would be a safe assumption to say that Palin would win every state McCain won, so she starts with 173 EV right there: Alabama Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska (4/5), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Barring a total landslide, what states are total lost causes? I'd say: California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine (3/4), Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. (Total: 189 EV)

That leaves the preliminary "battleground" (defined as "states Obama won but are not certain for him in 2012") as:

Colorado 9
Florida 27
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Michigan 17
Nebraska (1/5)
Maine (1/4)
Minnesota 10
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
Virginia 13
Wisconsin 10

So, where to get 97 or more EV? Okay, first of all, to have any chance, Palin needs to turn IN, NC, and VA back red (39 down, 58 to go). Under the "must win two of FL/OH/PA" principle, assume she needs FL and OH, that's another 47. So we're down to 9.

Where can she get them? Any one of CO, MN, or WI would be enough.

So, Palin's path to victory includes: all McCain states, FL, IN, NC, OH, VA, and one of CO/MN/WI. Can she do it? If so, how?

[section9]

With respect, bollocks.

Virginia and NC voted Obama because of the drop in support for Republicans among white males. These people had had it with Republicans, and for good reason; why vote for the Bushtard Party when McSame is all they’re offering?

Offer something new, something concrete, something that people can understand: competence in government and fiscal rectitude, and white voters will come back to the Republicans in droves. Including many Hispanic voters.

Best,

Chris

[Non-Sequitur]

That leaves the preliminary "battleground" (defined as "states Obama won but are not certain for him in 2012")

I would say that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and probably Nevada are far more likely to remain Democrat than to go with Palin. Obama won all of them by 10 to 15 points or more.

[Pox]

I have personally talked to several women in my area who were ready to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. The traditional voting patterns of the past no longer fully apply. Many of the same people who voted for Obama will go for the ‘first woman POTUS’ angle and cast their vote for Mrs. Palin regardless of party affiliation. Will that be enough to collect the necessary electoral votes? That is hard to tell and will depend primarily upon the overall popularity of Obama come 2012.

However, if Obama is simply Jimmy Carter 2.0, any reasonably popular Republican candidate will end up with an easy road to victory. (Unfortunately for Romney and his supporters, Romney would probably still lose in this given scenario, so of course he's out).

[section9]

Unfortunately, most of the people live in the DC, Richmond, and Hampton Roads suburbs.

Ultimately, her problem at a national level is that her base is concentrated in states that the GOP would win if it nominated Osama bin Laden, and she lacks appeal to voters outside that base.

I actually agree with your analysis.

Today.

But today is not two years from now, or even January of 2011 or 2012. "Suburban upscale voters" may tell pollsters they vote culturally, but in the end, they vote pocketbook.

In 2008, they voted pocketbook, because they believed that McSame was more of the Same. In '08, we fronted a guy with some real answers, especially on Health Care, but a guy who in the end, was a creature of the Senate and campaigned like it.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[joe fonebone]

I doubt that michigan can ever be turned....over 50% of the population get some kind of government check....we are truly lost...

[roses of sharon]

SP threads always bait the KosKid trolls.

[r9etb]

Voters who turned up their noses at Palin and all she represents in 2008

You make a fundamental error here.

Sarah Palin no doubt believes all kinds of right and proper things. But that does not automatically make her a good candidate.

Nor does refusal to support Sarah Palin automatically translate into a rejection of those right and proper things.

... will be hungry for a dramatic break from the bipartisan progressive consensus which gave us both McCain and 0.

And again you misunderstand what was going on there.

McCain can plausibly be said to represent the "progressive consensus," though I would suggest that his nomination was actually nothing more than a tribute to his ability to remain the last man standing among a very weak GOP field. Of the candidates available, I think McCain's main advantage was that he was the least "packaged" of the candidates, and thus more believable than the slicker, sleeker alternatives.

Obama's support came from the fact that he was able to portray himself as different from the "progressive consensus," and indeed he is "different," though not in the way that his supporters might have envisioned. Obama's support has an outright religious tone -- it has very little basis in such mundane considerations as "progressive consensus."

IOW, if there is a wave coming that could sweep 0 out of office, Palin is poised to ride it. If there isn't, we're stuck with 0 anyway.

I seriously doubt Sarah Palin would even survive the primaries. And she'd be crushed -- deservedly so -- if she somehow managed to get the nomination in 2012.

[papasmurf]

“Also, ideas on how she would make the theoretical path an actual one would be good.”

Campaigning hard for Conservatives and Palin Promisers in 2010 will greatly up our odds in 2012.

[r9etb]

Many of the same people who voted for Obama will go for the ‘first woman POTUS’ angle and cast their vote for Mrs. Palin regardless of party affiliation.

LOL! No they wouldn't.

[papasmurf]

Reminder:

Nov. 2010.

37 Governors and every U.S. Representative will be up for election/re-election.

We should be asking for commitments from them before making our own to them.

[kevkrom]

Campaigning hard for Conservatives and Palin Promisers in 2010 will greatly up our odds in 2012.

Indeed. Any plausible strategy Palin would have to win the primary or general election would rely on success in the 2010 mid-terms. This would provide both a necessary change of momentum and a structural foundation for the groundwork Palin would need to win in many of those states.

[astyanax]

She definitely gets his panties in a bunch, doesn't she?
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and steve-b.
I can't decide which one has more credibility...

[Pox]

A couple of women I talked to last fall who were willing to vote for Hillary, and are registered Democrats, have already stated to me that they would vote for Mrs. Palin on the Republican ticket and not for Obama, which is who they voted for in Nov. Simply because they would like to see a woman as the POTUS, and they would be thrilled to be ‘part of that historic moment’.

Yes, they will. And so will many others. Will that put her over they top? Hard to say, but as I said before, we're not dealing with historical voting patterns anymore.

[steve-b]

For somebody with negatives as high as Palin has among the general population (as opposed to her standing among star-struck conservatives), you should more properly assume that every state is in play for the Democrats.

That's a bit overly pessimistic -- the states where her base voters are concentrated (the Deep South and parts of the Mountain West) would certainly go for her. The problem, as I noted, is that those states are going to be red anyway (i.e. she doesn't really accomplish anything by carrying them), and are nowhere near enough to win an election.

[steve-b]

That’s why it’s not a matter of Palin contributing anything in particular. Given the conditions you describe, a potted geranium could be elected if it had an (R) label attached to it.

[steve-b]

Secondly, she has to prove to many voters that she isn't a religious nut. I'm not saying that she can't be religious, but she can't be weird, such as Pentecostal.

More importantly, she would have to be non-threatening (i.e. not cater to the anti-freedom aspects of the religious right, such as advocacy of internet censorship "to protect the children"). A "Sister Souljah" moment of public rebuke to one of the Dobson types might do the trick.

[kevkrom]

A "Sister Souljah" moment of public rebuke to one of the Dobson types might do the trick.

Personally, I'd take aim at Rick Warren over Dobson, but a decent point.

[dirtboy]

"Sister Souljah" moment of public rebuke to one of the Dobson types might do the trick.

You're just a typical RINO jackass, more concerned about 'Dobson types' as the Dems try to strangle conservative viewpoints with the Fairness Doctrine and related gambits.

The main impediment in the way of the GOP coming back to power is NOT religious conservatives. It is elitist idiots such as yourself who look down their noses at such. I disagree with many religious conservatives on issues such as evolution. But at the end of the day, I see them as allies, not enemies. The real political enemy is to my left. You look leftward and see kindred souls with the Dems in your hatred of conservativeChristians. And you'd rather lose to the Dems than let religious conservatives achieve the majority standing in the GOP that their numbers merit.

[r9etb]

the states where her base voters are concentrated (the Deep South and parts of the Mountain West) would certainly go for her.

They might "go for the Republican" because they're Red States. However, I think you seriously overestimate the size of Sarah Palin's base, and also the loyalty of Red States in response to weak candidates.

I'm inclined to remember the example of Barry Goldwater:

To be honest, though, I don't think Sarah Palin would even survive the primaries. She's a Huckabee-type candidate, whose support is mostly found among a small but ardent core, whereas the rest of the primary voters regard her with profound unease.

[roses of sharon]

She definitely gets his panties in a bunch, doesn't she?

Yes, bigots do tend to react irrationally to SP.