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...
I didn’t really understand your post, but republicans always lose New Jersey since the 1980s.
LOL... bless pissant’s heart lol... I ain’t that bad now!!
I don’t get your post either, New Jersey is not an indicater state, Bush never won there.
So, if Christie or another candidate(hypothetically) carried NJ, that would be a cushion against losing an important toss/up state or a larger mandate. Not saying of course that electoral math should be the deciding factor in choosing a nominee.
Okay, I think I explained it more clearly in post #44.
So, if we won NJ, we could afford to lose 15 electoral votes elsewhere...
No offense to him, but I don’t understand people who actually thought that Duncan Hunter, or Tancredo, or Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes, etc. were viable candidates... and then when you point that out to them, they just attack the stupidity of the American voters. That’s not a Reagan Republican attitude/strategy and not likely to win the “hearts and minds” of the electorate either.
Evidently, since Bush didn’t need them even in 2000 or in 2004, New Jersey does not vote Republican.
It has nothing to do with role reversal or social engineering.
It would be great to hear some of the white males in politics today articulating that the only way to save this nation, right now and for the near future, is a drastic effort to return to the Constitutional limitations on the federal government.
For whatever reason, the white males either can't or won't, and nothing less will suffice.
Yes she has to broaden her support. Wait until she starts appearing on the mainstream interview shows. Her job then is to win the hearts of millions of voters not yet sold on her. I think she’ll soften up some of the interviewers as well.
As you probably know, I have committed to raising $2 million dollars for Governor Sarah Palin if she runs for the presidency. I was able to raise a little over $40,000 for Fred Thompson in the very short time he was in the running and was a top fundraiser for my county GOP back in the 1980’s, so it’s not just wishful thinking.
I misunderstood your post, my point is that New Jersey is not a major player in republican presidential races, and who cares, Christie isn’t running and he is too liberal anyway.
So why do they have a Republican governor now?
And since when did Bush become the gold standard for Republican presidents?
I’m sorry but you are too confused for me to keep wasting time on.
So you’re taking this one guy’s attack on a female president to rant against “white males”... you’d fit right in on any university faculty, sister.
Well for us conservative "cerebralists", that may apply. The current culture and campaign style (since BillyJeff), fostered by the media, is just what you describe above; one-liners, clever "gotcha" lines and zingers are the "call-of-the-day". Sarah is tapping into the culture to wage a conservative battle.
I'm watching Milt Friedman's PBS series and I absolutely love it for how deep it digs. My kids ask me for a summary.
That’s not it... you’re just interested in partisan hack attacks based on (in your mind) the ONLY person who can be the nominee and therefore you can’t even deal with a simple concept, so you run and claim “confusion”. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your messianic coronation is “confused”.
The Bush victories were both squeakers... that eventually led to a Democratic landslide... who the hell in their right mind would cite those as examples worth emulating?
You never did cite with evidence that Christie is a liberal. If you can, I will cede the point to you. I’m not a Christie “follower” or “hack” and have no problem in doing so. But that still won’t make Palin a winner in the general election.
I'm not a sister; I'm a man, and a white man, and actually a really manly man and a real BAD dude, other than on the internet.
Go back and read the words I wrote to Sit-rep, and try real hard to understand what they mean. Or have your mommy read and explain them to you.
You could be entirely right about that; it’s just watching some of those 2008 interviews were painful (hatchet jobs though they were)... I just don’t know if she can overcome that.
And you can’t type GOD either,use G*d.
Thanks
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.