Sarah Palin Will Not Be the Republican Nominee (Sort of a misleading title)

Peter Beinart says the GOP is "her party now". Robert Lane Greene at the Economist says "she has to be considered the front-runner." Jon Chait and David Frum agree. So does Paul Mirengoff. Andrew Sullivan, unsurprisingly, asks "who can beat her?" Standing athwart this tide of pessimism - for none of those cited here want Palin to be the Republican nominee - are Ross Douthat and Daniel Larison.

I agree with Douthat and Larison. The case for presidential-nominee Palin rests upon the weakness of the field putatively lined up against her. (Assuming she runs herself, as I think she will.) It ignores the weaknesses of her own candidacy. Her support is deep but narrow and it is hard to see where she can win new supporters and those that she has already are not, probably, sufficiently numerous to win the nomination. How many currently undecided voters will break for Palin - the one candidate about whom almost everyone has already made up their mind? She is, if this is true, close to her maximum level of support already. Where do her extra votes come from?

Secondly, while there are plenty of conservatives who like the idea, at some level, of President Palin many of these sympathisers also suspect that, however regrettably, it's unlikely she can win the Presidency. Even though 66% of Republicans have a favourable view of the lapsed-Governor, just 24% of those conservatives say they plan on voting for Palin.

Or, look at it another way: despite doing everything she can to appeal to the conservative base Palin is polling no better, and often worse, than Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich. She came fifth in the Values Voters Summit straw poll, winning just 7% of the votes cast. If Palin really were the undisputed front-runner we'd expect her to enjoy a lead in the polls right now. At this stage of the cycle one thing is clear: she's no Hillary Clinton.

Nor does the current success of the Tea Party movement (and of Palin-endorsed candidates) necessarily prove much. There's all the difference in the world between off-year primaries and the Presidential campaign season. In one voters are free to endorse their favourites; in the other they consider who might actually win in the general election. There will be a lot of "I like Sarah but I don't think she can win..."

Relatively few nominees in recent times have been chosen with any great measure of enthusiasm. Dole? Meh. Gore? Meh McCain? Meh. Kerry? Super-meh. Granted, they all lost against opponents who did arouse enthusiasm from their supporters and this, I guess, may be Palin's best argument for her candidacy.

Nevertheless, practical considerations will play a part. Palin hasn't been put on the spot, far less had to defend herself under-pressure since the 2008 election. But she won't be able to duck the rigours of a Presidential campaign. The hustings and debates will matter and will help decide which candidates are deemed "viable" not just by the media but by the voters too. And there will be many more of those voters in a Presidential primary than there are in off-year contests.

Whatever her merits Sarah Palin is a minority taste within the GOP right now. What evidence is there to support the notion that, if the field were narrowed to two candidates, she would take home more than half the votes? She's going to have to run a "This is my sensibility" campaign, not a "This is my record" race. That too makes her task more difficult. At some point candidates have to have credible answers to that "What would you do?" question. Does Palin have those answers?

One final thought: things can change very quickly. In October and even November 2007 Howard Dean was the "inevitable" Democratic nominee. We remember how that turned-out don't we?

So while the temper of the conservative movement right now seems to favour Palin the limits of her appeal are also apparent. And since the GOP has decided to award delegates on a proportional rather than winner-takes-all basis also suggests the party establishment (damn them!) is hedging against any candidate romping to victory on the basis of the enthusiasm of a relatively small number of enthusiasts in small, early-voting states.

Sure, if the United States is still in an economic slump in 2011 then perhaps Palin's chances improve. But slogans and bromides and the rest of it aren't usually enough. If America decides it's tiref of Obama it will want a candidate with answers and plans. And that, at present, does not seem to be Palin's long suit.

I’m just not convinced with your argument that she can articulate it as well as you think.

Since we last "spoke" a few hours ago, two things have occurred to emphasize the difference between Sarah Palin and the expected House Speaker, Mr. Boehner.

One is Boehner's reported 22-page list of promises to the people, should the Republicans be returned to control in Congress. The problem with this detailed list (and I've only read some of it) is not that any of the items are wrong or bad suggestions. The problem is the release of a detailed list AT ALL. Each item, or selected items, will immediately get "Alinskyed", non-stop, simultaneously, on every leftist media outlet, 24/7, and the whole Republican Party will suffer guilt by association. The RINOs in Congress either can't wrap their little minds around the Alinsky method, or they can, but choose to give this deadly ammo to our enemies to maintain the status quo. Either the RINOs are lying traitors, or they are stupid. Either way, they are unfit to represent American citizens or the Republican Party.

In contrast, Sarah Palin appeared briefly on Greta's show, mostly to support O'Donnell, and to poke a sharp stick into the still spasming carcasses of the Sore Losers®. Her promise to the people, same as O'Donnell's, is the TEA Party message: Constitutional conservativism, lower taxes, lower spending, smaller government, and maybe a few more items on a generic, short list. This is the message that has won primary elections across the country, and is winning in the hearts and minds of the people for the November general elections. These are founding principles, proven successful over 200 years of our existence, and several conceptual layers above the policy wonk details laid out by Boehner. The leftists can't "Alinsky" these principles, as they can so easily do with Boehner's list of details.

This difference between Palin and Boehner today is simply an illustration, but one that should be clear to anyone who has observed the leftists operate over recent decades, and who understand what will and will not work in this war against this communist onslaught.

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.