Posted on 12/20/2010 10:26:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin was barely a blip on the political radar until she emerged as the running mate for 2008 U.S. presidential candidate John McCain.
Since then, she has gained a following among conservative Republicans, and while she hasn't officially announced any plans to run for president in 2012, her efforts to remain in the public eye seem geared toward that end.
If she did run, however, the question remains of whether she could secure the Republican nomination. And more importantly, there is the question of whether she could become the first female U.S. president, beating President Barack Obama, who is likely to be renominated as the Democratic candidate, in a head-to-head battle.
That seems a tall order, according to some experts and polls.
"PRESIDENT PALIN" -- AN UNLIKELY TITLE
Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC poll published on Friday found that a mere 8 percent of voters said they would definitely vote for Palin in a presidential race, versus 60 percent of respondents who said they definitely would not.
Clay Ramsay, research director at the Center on Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, said Palin's chances of winning enough primaries to stay in the game are about 50-50, adding any success beyond such a point is well below that figure.
To win the presidency, Palin would have to climb over three rungs: the primaries, the Republican National Convention, and a general election.
The former governor of Alaska would probably win a few primaries here and there, although her odds of making it through a convention are significantly lower, he said.
And while she has already been through a national campaign in which she showed signs of being her own woman, she also demonstrated a reluctance to accept schooling from professionals, some analysts noted.
POSSIBLE STRATEGIES
Dan Mahaffee, special assistant to the president at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, said one scenario in which Palin could win the primaries would be to mirror former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's 2008 strategy, which was to drum up a coalition of grass roots conservatives and Evangelicals.
Palin would also have to look toward particular geographic regions for support. Being a right-of-center candidate, she would not likely do well in many of the states that lean left. That means she would have to look to more conservative states in an effort to build such a coalition, he said.
In any case, there are certain contenders she could defeat in a one-on-one standoff, such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has dropped hints in recent weeks that he seeks to run but has made no formal announcement.
"Newt Gingrich has a long past, he has a long and awkward record. There are 20 years of video tape to play. Sarah Palin is still a comparatively fresh face," Ramsay said.
Still, there are a number of possibilities for the 2012 Republican ticket, and Gingrich said earlier this month that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the front-runner.
"Structurally, Romney's the front-runner, and in popularity, probably Huckabee's the front-runner," Gingrich said on "Fox News Sunday."
"Palin is a phenomenon in her own right," Gingrich said.
Mahaffee said the economy would have to remain weak for Palin to win, and other experts noted that Obama's sliding popularity is because of the frail U.S. economy.
She would also have to demonstrate a deeper knowledge of the issues than she has thus far. Indeed, since her arrival on the national scene, critics have derided her as having little knowledge of foreign and other policies.
PALIN'S REALITY TV SHOW
Overcoming those perceptions depends on how successful she is in her current endeavors as a media personality, including public appearances and her "Sarah Palin's Alaska" reality TV show.
At present, the show depicts Palin hiking and road tripping through the Alaskan wilderness in a bid to portray herself as a down-to-earth middle-class American, while distancing herself from what she views as aloof elites in Washington.
Mahaffee, however, questions the show's effectiveness. While it shores up her base, it does little to increase her outreach beyond her current supporters.
Still, the show is no crystal ball of Palin's political fortunes, some experts said.
"When someone is as famous as she is, the whole thing about doing a show on cable is that you have a small but happy and loyal audience, and I don't think it tells you anything about how she's going to play out as a national politician," Ramsay said.
“One more time. I adore Mrs. Palin. I just think she can’t be elected and will do more harm than good as a candidate.”
And you think she’s a whore.
“You’re blinded by your love of Palin, how could you see anything in any type of proper perspective?”
You think that people here are “blinded by love” of Sarah Palin?
“*click* Okay, I think I get you, now...sorry for the misunderstanding.”
No problem ... I was probably not clear ... when I told him he was under the ether of the MSM, I was referring to his belief that Quayle was some sort of dummy, as he has been taught to believe SP has no chance of winning. It’s startling to see people fall for the MSM line so often and so repeatedly. I think of it as being under ether ... still alive but deadened to what’s happening to them.
I’ll buy that you adore Mrs. Palin, but just don’t think she can win.
My question to you is WHY do you feel this way?
Do you have any other disagreements with her policy positions?
Do you doubt her experience? Or feel it is inadequate? Compared to whom?
Is it the negative media narrative that has you concerned?
I am trying to not sound like a “Palin-bot” I don’t want to call names, I want to discuss why you hold the views you do.
Don’t just keep repeating, “She can’t win,’ and then get mad when we disagree.
If you have something to support your position let’s hear it...because I’ve looked at this very hard, and I have come to an opposite conclusion.
Yes, there are some inacuracies about her that need to be addressed. There is a horrible narative, but that is false.
She’s lucky to have truth on her side, so people who say she can’t win seem to be saying, truth cannot win out over distortions and lies. I think this is the genesis of some of her rabid support.
She has been falsely defamed and the injustice of it doesn’t seem fair. Life isn’t fair, I understand, but she won’t shut up and sit down and neither will her supporters.
So I think that is a large part of the emotion behind her support. I’d like to hear from you why you are so certain she cannot win. That there is no way the truth can overcome the lies.
Or do you believe the lies?
I don’t know, all I’ve seen from you is “She can’t win and it will be bad for the party.”
We’ll, congratulations, you can parrot the elite establishment Republican talking points, but so can Barbara Bush...I want to know WHY?
Right now - i’m Palin/Christie 2012
Dan Mahaffee, special assistant to the president at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, said one scenario in which Palin could win the primaries would be to mirror former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's 2008 strategy, which was to drum up a coalition of grass roots conservatives and Evangelicals.
Why would she want to copy a guy who lost, or take advice from so-called professionals who ran a stupid stupid campaign?
>>Is it the negative media narrative that has you concerned?<<
Yes, that is the main issue. IMHO, Her interview with couric was a “macaca” moment in her political career and pretty well sidelined her. It was too soon, McCain’s people didn’t prep her and she got thrown to the dogs.
You rarely get a second chance to make a good impression. Most Americans (Joe and Jane Six-pack in Peoria) still think she is a ditz, despite the fact she has worked very hard to bring her policy understanding up to speed. And Mrs. Palin is wicked smart and has used that knowledge to formulate very insightful AND incisive thoughts about policy: economic, domestic and foreign.
I know that and you know that. But I am pretty sure America DOESN’T know that. I think those early deer in the headlights moments can’t be removed, any more than hillary was able to remove her inane and shrill comments enough to take what an entire machine had handed to her (the fact they are both women is incidental).
And we can’t eliminate the PDS from the left — the zero fuhrer was able to win by converting moderate Republicans (I know, I know, another discussion altogether). In this case, Mrs. Palin has a small but dedicated base, but a very large enmity (undeserved but true nonetheless) population.
I am sure many on this thread will come along and attempt to knock off these one at a time, but it won’t change my conclusions.
And, as a final note, I really hope she and you prove me wrong. Maybe by this time next year we see Mrs. Palin polling at 60+%, meaning America WAS able to overlook her initial missteps.
But history suggests otherwise and there is a lot of mischief that can result if she shoots and badly misses.
I should have started with this — that might have at least taken the discussion into the analysis arena and not name-calling (and yes, I did my share).
>>And you think she’s a whore.<<
Don’t put words into my mouth/keyboard.
It is people like you that will definitely sink any remote chance she has of even being competitive. Slavish sycophants.
If you want to sideline every effective republican because the MSM will try to take them out, then we'll never have another president with an (R) beside their name again.
Let's just give up. The media always gets its way right? What happened in 1980? 2000? How did 2010 ever come to be?
>>Let’s just give up. The media always gets its way right?<<
Reagan was able to tie the media in knots. That is the skill we need today, more than ever.
I wish DeMint would make up his mind. At times he is impressive and statesmanlike. Other times, he is just baffling.
How did the house get taken over this year?
DeMint has consistently said he’s not interested in running, there’s no mind to make up, it seems to be a done deal already.
>>I think you forget how it actually happened for Reagan, but that’s another discussion. How did a poor speaker who couldn’t speak over the media win in 2008?<<
It doesn’t change my analysis, as laid out above.
>>How did the house get taken over this year?<<
Blowback.
>>DeMint has consistently said he’s not interested in running, there’s no mind to make up, it seems to be a done deal already.<<
My point is we need a statesman with a consistent CONSERVATIVE message. We have 3/4 of that with DeMint.
Mrs. Palin supplies that from the sidelines (I am sure I mentioned upthread her role as a firebrand may be the most important for her) but we need it in the halls of Congress.
Sorry, what I read you saying seems naive at best, like you're counseling we should just all give up because of the big bad media.
>>Sorry, what I read you saying seems naive at best, like you’re counseling we should just all give up because of the big bad media.<<
IMHO and YMMV. You might want to re-read my post since you missed the main point.
And they set those hurdles just for Mrs. Palin? Wow. How unfair. I guess she hasn't got a chance with those requirements. I'll bet the Republicans are making her do that just because she's a woman!
“You might want to re-read my post since you missed the main point.”
You don’t have a main point. you just keep repeating that there are better choices but you don’t say who; you keep saying there is a better way but don’t say how; you say the midterms were won because of “blowback” when even the dimmest bulb understands it was the good work and dedication of the Tea Party.
Who are your choices?
You accused Palin of being another Ron Paul, yet when asked in what way, you had nothing.
You then said some nonsense about having a following. Does that in your alleged mind make anyone with a following just like Ron Paul? You said
Really, do you have a thought you can articulate?
Because you have been asked a lot of questions and answered with nothing. You got nothing.
You're giving up because no one is Reagan, you're giving up because we have no "statesmen", you snipe at someone who is actually in the ring fighting for what you believe, and you go all drama queen because you don't see a perfect solution (like you saw looking backwards at what Reagan did).
Good luck with that attitude, it's what the MSM adores in conservatives.
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.