Does Sarah Palin have a shot at U.S. presidency?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

You are really very sadly mistaken.

I wonder what level of ignorance you must be at to come up with your bullsh*t. Yor derangement is probably the worst I’ve seen on here, you can’t even think straight.LOL

I have asked NO one for “proof” of anything.
(so, you are lying about what I said.)

I was asking for REASONS why they held the views they did.

No one has “proof’ of anything that is going to happen in the 2012 election. Are you twelve yeas old? Or just mentally slow?

Poll after poll does NOT show Americans disagree with Palin on the issues. The polls you are confused about are probably ones asking about her electability (and they are bogus/slanted/biased.)

Here is what I was talking about, you mental midget:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5811152/more_voters_agree_with_sarah_palin.html?cat=9

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2010/52_of_voters_say_their_views_are_more_like_palin_s_than_obama_s

I did not lie about what you said. Below is your post I responded to. Learn some English.

To: freedumb2003

Hey freeDumb,

I want to thank you.

I don’t really know what your motives or intentions are by coming on here with your anti-Palin nonsense, but it has provided a valuable service here and I appreciate it.

I guess you may be unfamiliar with or just don’t understand the phenomenon of Sarah, but she connects with her supporters on such an elementary gut level, we feel she is actually one of us and represents our core values.

We tend to see all the unfair and false criticisms of her as attacks on us and what we personally believe in and hold dear. As such, when someone like you comes along spouting the usual mainstream narrative (that we know for a fact to be false) it strengthens our resolve, causing us to get even more invested in her victory.

You may single handily inspire enough of us to put her over the top early.

So, please, keep up the good work.

You have given no evidence to support your “position” that Sarah can’t win. You only repeat the establishment lie based on bogus polls. They are trying to sway public opinion with these, and it must be frustrating for you establishment types that it doesn’t seem to be working.

I have to ask, is Romney paying you? Because if not you are a fool. He is paying good money for agitators like you in an attempt to tamp down support for Sarah.

It’s just ironic how it has the opposite effect.

So thank you...now go get some of that easy Romney money. Fool.

167 posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 08:04:43 by t-dude (Sarah causes banal and vituperous evil snarks to shriek in horror!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ev·i·dence /ËˆÉ›vÉªdÉ™ns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing. –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Evidence=PROOF.

You asked Freedumb for "evidence" I asked you for your "proof".

Remember you started the name calling.

BTW No jerk off internet keyboard jackwagon like you can offend me. You clearly have been drinking the Kool-aid.

If you want to have a discussion do not call me a name again. Please try to keep up.

If you are not willing to recognize your own posts then this will be short.

I'll wager I have forgotten more about politics than you know. I worked on two of Reagan's Presidential campaigns. Three different US Senate candidates and two House Reps - one of which is serving today.

Well now I am sorry.

Since I was asking for something that would support freeDumb’s position, when I used the word “evidence” I was using it with the understood meaning of :

(from your definition)
1. grounds for belief;

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign

(these definitions are understood by most with standard reading comprehension when used as I did: asking for “evidence’ to support his position)

Yes, evidence CAN BE proof, but NOT always.

Proof is always evidence, i.e. the evidence that proves the facts. But evidence is not always proof, sometimes it’s an indication or a sign or (and this is key, pay attention) “grounds for belief.” That’s why words matter. Hence the reason I DIDN’T use the word “proof.”

I know what I am saying. My English is just fine thank you.

No, “proof” was your word. Perhaps you should look that up if you’re still at the stage that you have to look up the meaning of simple words. That might not help you with comprehension in proper usage...hmmm...maybe some remedial reading classes?

Thanks for the admonition to “learn some English” but please, look in a freakin’ mirror.

I am surprised President Reagan had such a poorly educated person working for him...perhaps your job was knocking on doors or handing out fliers? Congratulations.

Yes, I lost my composure when I thought you were unfairly characterizing my position.

Now I see you are just confused.

My apologies again.

You have a wonderful evening and please don’t hurt yourself out there. It’s a big dangerous world, especially for people like you who struggle with the simple things.

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.