WAIT! THERE'S MORE! STICK AROUND! WHERE YA' GOIN'!
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...
well, I actually agree with him here if what you say is true. The American people are stupid. How else do you think we got here?? How do you think we got into the mess we are in.
I’m know historian by any means, but I do remember reading once upon a time Washington’s Farewell Address where he clearly warned on the implications of a dumb society. He warned that it is in every citizen duty to be educated in politics and government. I give us a failing grade for quite some time.
You think that just because Palin says the right things she is going to get elected? The only way she gets elected is if the majority of the people she is heard by know what she is saying is truthful and wise. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In addition, you have a Media that will do it’s best to hide the truth and wise from the public.
Unfortunately Politics is show business. America is hurtin for a John Wayne, not a Uma Thurman... (although she is hot)
Actors with smarts!
.
We will assume that you do not use the “gender neutral” restroom! :o)
.
lol... so you’re a real BAD dude... and I’m a just a vet with a broken back... you could have been a girl and still whooped me... lol
But I’m glad you’re a manly man... I’m just not into you like that... please don’t beat me up though... I might shoot you with my keyboard.
No, your posts are all over the place, confused, accusatory, rambling, and frankly difficult to follow they are so scattered. I think I’ll pass.
You freakin’ feminist! ;-)
Your wording changed a bit. The fact that there are none, should prompt one to find one instead of taking the only choice that is left. That is the my point you seem to avoid.
.
> “I think she’ll soften up some of the interviewers as well.
.
That is one thing I really do not expect to see!
You have to understand where they’re coming from, and how they got their jobs.
Their cold-blooded mendacity had to be beyond question for them to even get an interview.
.
How so? By analyzing that a win in New Jersey would change the electoral landscape?? Didn’t Reagan carry it twice?? You’re not making sense. Your view is “if it’s doable, we shouldn’t do it, because we couldn’t do it last time.”
I understand how logical argumentation can seem confused and all over the place to someone who is not used to employing it. If it is difficult to follow, maybe you should invest in say... I don’t know... some elementary age home school material.
Accusatory?
You interpreted this article as an “accusation” (hit piece) on your cause-celebre... project much?
.
> “The fact that there are none, should prompt one to find one instead of taking the only choice that is left.”
.
Nobody is “taking the only choice that is left.”
We are taking an unbeliveably solid choice, that makes the rest of the field look pale. More and more people every day are recognizing that we have the best of all possible choices, and would be foolish to try to imagine up another.
.
Reagan warned us that if the USA falls, our children will take the first steps into a thousand years of darkness. Now is such a time of which he warned us.
Sarah Palin gets that for real, and many of the other female conservatives get that. Maybe a few of the men get that, and just can't articulate it to the voters, which is an absolute necessity right now.
BTW, just looked at your about page. Interesting stuff. Were you in the Navy?
I truly hope you are right. But if you’re not, we’re fooked...
I stand with the idea it is too much of a risk, one we can’t afford to lose.
But hey... I’m just one opinion out here in the fields...
I agree with your diagnosis... I’m just not convinced with your argument that she can articulate it as well as you think. I do see glimpses of it with her every now and then though.
I’d take a Palin loss over a Romney “victory”... I’ll sit that one out.
I think I misunderstood your post in the first place.
The main point is that it would go from being a possible GOP win to a lock if the Christie ran and won NJ.
If he could take NJ he might even have a shot at some other northeastern states. Game over, because Obama isn’t going to magically get the south or any traditionally GOP areas this time.
Palin has made it clear in her writings, and her speech that she sees and understands what we see, and has given good indication of where she is going.
No one else has even made a faint attempt to do so.
They seem to be hoping that the voters will see them as prince charming, and just vote for them without knowing what they support. The primaries should have gotten across to them that it ain’t going to fly this time.
.
Our own endangered political class have never even bothered to check our pulse, to the point where they thought we were either comatose or well and truly dead. That they now face extinction is proof of the fact that, alas, they never knew us... and never cared to.
So for the poor bad-teeth crowd across the oil-caked pond to be even further off with their slings and arrows is entirely understandable. One might even call this egocentric projection on their part "William Tell-ing," given how their opinions are founded in mythology and cynicism about us "Yanks" and "Cowboys." Don't expect, however, that this lack of real insight will ever prevent them ventilating and pontificating as though they are some sort of expert on the topic; after all, it's what they do.
;-/
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.