Posted on 09/22/2010 2:28:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
In other words, she ain't gonna be the nominee. Probably...
And I’ll just add; I’m not AGAINST Palin. I’m not being partisan about this; I’m just doubtful that she can pull it off.
Christie just said that 2012 is too early for him to run, that he isn’t ready.
Yeah, if Christie was a southern governor, he would still be a good candidate. But putting New Jersey in play would make him a game-changer.
Palin 2012!
Obama said the same thing. And Palin certainly couldn’t use it against him if he changed his mind.
> “The case for presidential-nominee Palin rests upon the weakness of the field putatively lined up against her”
.
Such blindness!
What makes the rest of the field weak is the comparison to the incredible strengths of Sarah Palin.
In a ‘normal’ election, the field would be normal, not weak, but with the chalenges we face and the clear ability of Palin to meet the chalenges, the field becomes weak indeed.
She’s been attacked 365, 24/7 since she was named McCain’s VP and yet she’s still standing, and now standing alone stronger than ever.
Nobody comes close to her.
Nonsense. Republicans win or lose regardless of New Jersey.
> “Christie just said that 2012 is too early for him to run, that he isn’t ready.”
.
If Palin chooses him as her running mate, he will suddenly be ‘ready.’
You might want to look up what the moderate Republican said about not running, it was pretty convincing.
Precisely!
Bring on the best competition.
It's our American way.
Language?? okay, i’ll spell it different or use $$ next time ... that seems more excepted...
Right! Thanks!!
A "real man" can't get the job done, but a "real woman" who is a Constitutional Conservative can, backed by a conservative House and Senate (at least more conservative than it is now).
Your post makes the point. Men in politics think this is a game, wherein cheerleading and winning is the only objective.
Conservative women who are entering the political arena these days are doing so from an instinctual drive for the survival of their progeny and their nation, something that low-IQ jocks will never understand. This is NOT social experimenting.
Gee, why even have the election then, we’ve already won. (stifled laughter). Guess Obama won’t try and have most of the msm on his side, huh?
Palin 2012.
Do you think he’s a moderate? Fiscally, certainly not. And I saw youtube news videos of him during the campaign where he unabashedly stated he was pro-life.
I think the only issue I noted he was wishy-washy on was “gun control” for NJ on Hannity... and then it sounded more like an apology that he couldn’t win in NJ on an issue with that stance (in other words, he didn’t come across as a true believer in gun control).
I might be way off here; if you have any evidence, I’d be glad to look at it.
But unlike “fiscal conservative Ahnuld” (lol), no one can make the case that Christie is not a limited government Republican... and in order to be a social liberal, it takes fiscally liberal policies to enact that agenda... thus the myth of the “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” Governator of CA.
yea... I see the new roll reversals plaster’d all over TV to. Only a Woman is capable... A woman and/or with a black man. I have’nt bought into yt though.
Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.
13 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 2:20:02 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
Yeah, but I think the point is that NJ would put one over the top. Can we please just acknowledge some basic political analysis without making it into a “war” of “your guy” vs “my guy”. I don’t have a guy. And obviously, the guy you just replied to already stated that he is a Palin supporter first.
Some of you are seeing hit pieces and “attacks” where they don’t even exist.
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.