Posted on 07/11/2010 6:15:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If she does run for president, her path will be more complicated than her true believers realize.
Andrew Sullivan has a good roundup of some of the recent punditry about Sarah Palin and the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. I've given my position before: Anyone who thinks she has it locked up is nuts, and anyone who thinks that there's zero possibility of her winning is also nuts. But that does raise the question: What can we know now? What should we ignore? And by the way, how does the nomination process work, anyhow?
First: We can't know what's in any candidate's head. Anyone who tells you that they're certain that Palin is "really" just in it for the money, or is "really" power-crazed and only cares about getting elected, is actually just guessing. My advice: Anyone who tells you they're sure about stuff like this is someone to usually skip.
Second: We don't know what she really wants, but we can say that she's doing the things now that a presidential candidate in her position would do. I'm comfortable with saying that she's currently running for president (along with Romney, Pawlenty and others). Or, as Josh Putnam would but it, she's running for 2012, whether or not she'll be running in 2012. That description would have fit Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- and Al Gore and John Kerry -- in 2005-2006.
Third: Presidential nominations are ... I need a word not quite as strong as "controlled," but much stronger than "influenced" ... .by political party leaders. See below, for an explanation. What that means is that it's very unlikely that a candidate disliked by party leaders could actually get herself nominated. If party leaders don't want Palin -- and I think they'd be nuts to want her, but that doesn't mean they won't -- then they'll have little trouble keeping the nomination from her. The best recent example of this was the fate of Mike Huckabee in 2008, but another reasonable example is Dan Quayle's failed bid for the 2000 nomination, when various conservative opinion leaders who had been quick to defend Quayle up to that point did not take his candidacy seriously, and it quickly ended. If Republican leaders don't want Palin, you'll start hearing negative stories about her on Fox News, and from leading conservative talk shows and blogs, and enthusiastic conservatives will turn elsewhere.
Fourth: A useful reminder: Many conservatives are enthusiastic about Sarah Palin in the context of Palin vs. Obama. But in 2011 and 2012, if she's actively campaigning, she won't be running against Obama; she'll be running against Romney, Pawlenty and other conservatives. Yes, some of those other candidates aren't exactly household names, or able to elicit the kind of enthusiasm among conservatives that Palin has now, but give them some positive buzz from Rush and Hannity and the rest, and that can be created real fast.
(By the way -- that doesn' t just happen on the right, and Hillary Clinton found out the hard way.)
Fifth and last: I recommend moving anyone who predicts that the Sage of Wasilla will repeat as V.P. nominee to the bottom of your reading list. Really, she might be president, she might be the next Oprah, she might be the first woman on the moon, but there's just no way that anyone is going to select her as their running mate after the way she treated the McCain campaign.
Now, bonus content: Presidential Nomination Process 101. I said that nominations are controlled by "party leaders." That does not mean that a handful of people sit down in a room in Washington and dictate the nomination. What it means is that quite a few people, including the leaders of party-aligned interest groups, local and state party leaders, big donors, opinion leaders, major politicians at the state and national levels, and ordinary activists, collectively try to come to a decision. The role of the voters over the last couple of decades has been three things. First, and most basically, voters ratify the decisions of party leaders. Second, in cases in which party leaders split, voters may determine the outcome. And, third, it appears that party leaders sometimes use voters in the early primaries and caucuses to test how a candidate they are considering supporting will play with the electorate. So Howard Dean failed that test in Iowa in 2004, while Barack Obama passed it in 2008. Those insiders narrow down the field during the "invisible primary" -- hey, wait, that's happening right now! That's why, for example, by the time the voters started choosing in 2008 such reasonable-on-paper candidates as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson were reduced to asterisks; they had already been winnowed out before anyone even voted.
OK, that's what we do know. What we -- that is, what political scientists -- don't really know is which party leaders are the most influential in any one party at any one time. We're much better at figuring that sort of thing out after the fact. So there's plenty of scope for good reporting, especially over the next year or so when things are beginning to matter. Things such as the National Journal's insiders poll are helpful; campaign finance reports will start being helpful; endorsements are helpful. But it's also helpful to poke around aggressively to find out which interest group leaders are thought of as serious players and which are resting on their reputations; which state and local party people carry resources with their endorsements; which Washingtonians are really plugged in to conservative networks, and which are just repeating stale conventional wisdom. Good reporters can get to that kind of stuff as it's happening. So my advice is to pay attention to reporters and pundits who seem to know what they're talking about when it comes to the Republican Party network, and less attention to those who think they know what's in Sarah Palin's head.
Its not just disagreeing with her, I can totally understand that, but its sheer hatred. It’s like reading posts from the daily kos, I just don’t get it. If she did run for President and run I would think that every Republican would want her to win instead of the Marxist clown we have in the White House now, but I guess it’s the same ol saying, “If I can’t have you no one can” if their guy can’t win, then they will make sure whoever is the nominee doesn’t win either. It’s a shame. I would think after 2 years of Obama everyone would want him out no matter who the nominee is. I mean I am no fan of Romney but if he were to become the nominee I would vote for him, because as much as I don’t like him I would rather have him in the White House then Obama..
How is Palin doing in National poll numbers? Last time I checked she was hanging in around 30 some percent. The Left has poisoned the well for Palin with a lot of help from McCain’s people.
It is interesting that you mentioned Mit Romney. We had Mit as our keynote speaker at the Washington State Republican Convention. He gave a great speech and what he said was well received. I liked when he said, “Who would think that they would be looking at the Jimmy Carter years as the good old days?” And, “its time to pin the blame on the donkeys.”
You can see it here:
http://piercegop.org/2010/06/20/2010-wsrp-convention-includes-keynote-address-by-mitt-romney/
I would settle with his candidacy if it turned out that way. However, my hopes are with Sarah Palin. She would electrify the electorate.
Hmmmmm Hmmmmmm Hmmmmm.
That was spoken a year ago. I wonder if he is eating those words now. I wonder how much of what he thinks is proven to be invalid; which makes him prone to making bad decisions. We need a leader who can be trusted to get things right the first time. It is this flaw that will work against him.
I recognize the tactic his is using. He is trying to appeal to the independents. It is something that McCain tries to do. I do not like it and, like McCain, I will hold my nose if he gets the nomination.
|
” Or maybe I’ll have figured out that playing the part of a political pawn (as most of us tend to do) is useless (since we are all expendable) and that I should instead focus on extracting as much as possible for myself out of either side. “
OUCH ;-)
I am a donor thank you, I did not want my name included on list. by the way who called out donna? not me? I said troll with no name. Standing by my original post.
The optimistic patriot.
.
You did. Most of us know you did. Most of know you will continue to do so.
Which is why no one here (other than a few pathetic hangers on who line up as surrogate parents) trusts your judgment. It's awful and just plain dumb.
Maybe some day you'll grow up........even that's in doubt........
Read her book and you will know a lot about her.
It seems clear to me that if a person is even contemplating running for president, it would be a wise thing to have “friends” on the inside. McCain knows where all the bones are buried and he pulls a lot of weight with the insiders. I don’t know about Sarah, but if it were me, I would darn well hang on to McCain. He could be very helpful, as he was for Scott Brown. Our girl is no idiot. She has natural political instincts. Good for her.
Oh, I’ve read her book, and unlike her detractors think that it expresses her authentic voice. The person in the book is the person we see in public. Unlike Obama’s autobiography, where I discern a man who is largely a fictional character of his own creation.
I’v had to read a lot about Lincoln in order to get a sense of what it would have been like to see the man in person or even on TV. One thing that eludes me is that because of all the pictures, it is hard to imagine him smiling. It is said that he had a great smile and that it totally transformed his face,as a smile often does the faces of homely people. As he didn’t smoke, drink or chew,or eat a lot he probably had great teeth.
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.