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...
> “The main point is that it would go from being a possible GOP win to a lock if the Christie ran and won NJ.”
.
No, absolutely not!
Christie’s record is way too liberal for that. He would cause loads of voters to just stay home, cuz we just won’t accept McCain #2.
Hear Hear!
.
Wouldst buy a Rambler from this man?
.
fully aware ES who Sarah is... I’ve seen her in many appearences, read materials, and lurked FR on the subject for years. I know who she is. I agree with you. She is the only one saying what needs to be said. We hear her, we see her, we agree with her. But, that is because we are looking for it. What about the countless masses who are not, and tune in a week before it’s time to vote, with a memory of the media bashing her for something from time to time? And these same folks, seem to determine our presidents...
Go get 'em Sarah. We love you.
The real target in my opinion should be the media. Get them to report honestly, and we may get somewhere.
Lost cause!
.
I understand that line of thought, but I see it most these days on Free Republic and other conservative sites, where the people have seen so much disappointment in the voting public's poor choices in recent decades.
Out among the general population, and these primary elections bear it out, there is a mass awakening going on, and I'm not talking about the Glenn Beck sort of awakening. I'm talking about the "2x4 up side the head" sort of awakening.
> “What about the countless masses who are not, and tune in a week before it’s time to vote, with a memory of the media bashing her for something from time to time?”
.
First, the MSM’s private polls have been telling them since August of ‘08 that ain’t going to happen. The reason for their attacks is that her support is deep and wide.
Second, we mostly call those kind of voters democrats. Radical Democrats.
Gimmies!
.
Occasionally, I feel I have to get this off my chest. Since it looks like I'm near the end of this tread, I think I can post this without concern of hijacking the thread.
Sometimes I have to prove to myself that I'm not mindlessly biased. Now check it out. I'm for Sarah, right? I love her and she looks to me like the best thing coming down the pike. I love Alan Keyes, and admire Clarance Thomas as maybe the best Justice on SCOTUS when it comes to adherence to constitutional intent.
Nevertheless, here's what I posted on another thread. Hopefully this won't get moderated out...
I love Sarah, but am sick of quotas and affirmative action giving the leadership roles to women and blacks over those who may be more objectively qualified.
I believe by-and-large that women are equipped for children and the home and relationships in general. I tend to think that in some ways women are more intelligent than men, at least in some arenas. The arena of relationships for instance. I think, however, that women in general have difficulties with the focused and objective demands of leadership positions in the workplace or politics. This is not inconsistent with the New Testament view that also includes the caveat of the susceptibility of deception. Their relationship strengths that make them a star at home have a tendency to cloud the difficult objective decisions leadership requires, thus the statement about unreliability (not at home, but in leadership roles, “exceptions notwithstanding”).
From my observations, the prevailing black culture is dysfunctional in two important areas:
1) A kind of self-hatred/self rejection causes family relationships to be harsh and cruel, especially with their children, but also between husband and wife. The self rejection and harsh treatment growing up may have a lot to do with a lack of motivation.
2) An attitude that someone owes them a living and if something goes wrong, why somebody isn’t going to fix it for me. Obama's Socialism and CommieCare are reflections of this mindset. That also may be why no known black government is free and democratic but dictatorial.
I guess the best spokesman to come along about the problems in the black culture (in general) and the reluctance to address problems in black culture is Bill Cosby. Maybe if a relevant article comes through with him as the author, FR might not delete it.
When Sarah ran as Veep nominee with McCain, she had to deal with duplicitous campaign aides who wouldn't let her speak out forcefully for herself, so she was not able to answer the frap put out by the MSM about her.
If she decides to run, she'll have the floor to herself, and with each campaign speech, will have the chance to put the correct information out there, and I believe many will change their minds about her. There are a LOT of undecideds, and the right message could persuade them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a woman President, and it's not a 'social experiment' for the folks who like Sarah. They hear her conservative message, and realize that she seems to be the ONLY Republican actually talking that way, and ACTING that way, as well.
I like it!!
You seem to think that folks like Sarah for President BECAUSE she’s a women. You don’t seem to understand that her being a woman isn’t the most important reason we like her. We like her principled stand on the conservative issues, and her strength in speaking up for them, no matter how much frap is thrown at her by the MSM, libs, and even some conservatives.
> “I love Sarah, but am sick of quotas and affirmative action giving the leadership roles to women and blacks over those who may be more objectively qualified.”
.
Here is what is wrong with your idea:
There is no one AS well qualified as Palin, let alone more qualified.
Alan akeyes has run before, but due to his total lack of any kind of executive or electorial experience he has been a low single digit guy every time.
Alan is a great guy, but just not by any stretch of the imagination presidential material. But he’d make a really great professor.
.
Sarah should challenge Barry to multiple unmoderated debates. The way the debates are currently set up, it favors the Democrat, we cant let the MSM manage the debates.
JMHO
“I do not expect to see her softening up her interviewers”
As audiences swing toward Palin, the interviewers will have to stay in tune with them. Be assured that losing audience is the worst case scenario for entertainers.
I’m a wishful thinker for sure!
I believe, however, that generally what I've said is true.
> “Be assured that losing audience is the worst case scenario for entertainers.”
Oh yea? - Think MSNBC and CNBC.
They don’t see themselves as entertainers; they consider themselves to be Thought Correctors.
We have improper thoughts, and their job is to fix those unacceptable, improper thoughts.
.
Romney the snake, is always at work, behind the scenes, trying to diminish Sarah Palin.
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.