Posted on 11/30/2008 2:59:10 PM PST by lewisglad
The Battle for the GOP Is On - Palin, Romney or JindalNovember 30th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: Leave a comment | Trackback The latest polls of Republican and all voters indicate that the conservative Republican base favors candidates voters in general do not think too highly of.
For instance, 24.4% Republican voters want Governor Sarah Palin to be the Republican candidate for president in 2012. Only 13.4% of all voters agree.
At the same time, Governor Mitt Romney ranks second among all voters, six points behind Palin, but leads among all voters (be it barely).
Among conservatives, both represent an entirely different faction: Palin is the Christian conservative while Romney is the darling of (elite and well educated) fiscal conservatives. These two battled it out earlier this year with fiscal conservatives favoring Romney, Christian conservatives supporting Governor Mike Huckabee, and the party ending up with Senator John McCain as the compromise candidate.
A compromise figure not able to make life truly difficult for now president-elect Barack Obama.
Most remarkable about the figures, however, is that there is a third candidate who does relatively better (meaning: smaller gap) among all voters than among Republicans: Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal has quite a low profile nationally, yet he already ranks third in both categories. When all voters are included, the gap between him and Romney is only 1.2%, which is remarkable.
Huckabee fares less well; he is fourth with only 9.7% among Republicans and 8.0% among all voters.
This while Huckabee was the favorite of the Christian conservative base.
So what happened to Huckabee? Palin. Although Huckabee could count on the support of Christian conservatives during the primaries, they all flocked to Palin during the general election campaign. Palin became their candidate, their darling even. The defeat made her more not less popular among this group of conservative voters for they consider her a martyr.
The above means that the Republican Party could very well nominate a person who is deemed anti-intellectual, simple, naive and overly socially conservative in 2012 or that the war between the fiscal conservative and social conservative base will continue with at least one side staying home on election day, thereby ensuring Obama a second term.
That is, unless Palin can improve her image, studies hard and convince libertarian and fiscal conservatives that she is more than just a socon (unlikely). Or if Romney will succeed in courting Evangelicals and convincing them that either his Mormon faith should not be a problem to them (unlikely) or that his faith and their faith teach the same basic principles and values (less unlikely, but not altogether likely).
Of course there is a third option, an option I consider most likely and, especially, most in the interest of the Republican Party: that conservative voters will agree on a compromise candidate who endorses conservative views in most ways. In other words, a person who is a convinced social conservative (yet not overly so, for it would make it easy to destroy a candidate who is as socially conservative and as vocal about it as Palin and Huckabee are), who also has a track record of fiscal conservatism and who sympathizes with many libertarian policies.
At this moment, it seems to me that neither Huckabee nor Palin nor Romney fit the bill (although Romney would certainly be a better choice than the other two). Jindal, however, does.
For Jindal, 2008 and especially 2009 offer a tremendous opportunity to raise his profile nationally, to court conservatives of all stripes and to implement policies rooted in conservatism. He will have to use his time in Louisiana in order to show voters that conservative policies work and improve their daily lives. He he has already done so to a tremendous degree, but the most difficult times are ahead of him. The recession is likely to worsen in the coming months with Americans in all states suffering financially. Jindal will have to control the damage and improve his state at the same time.
It is way too early to be talking about 2012. Many states are going to have to tackle tough budget problems (AK & LA included). How Jindal and Palin handle these budget problems will make or break their Presidential aspirations. The problem with the GOP is not that its too conservative or less conservative. Its the image of the GOP being a country club for rural evangelicals who care only about gay marriage. Palin and Jindal have opportunites to show the world how competent they are with fiscal matters. If they are successful, then their stock for the GOP Presidential nomination will go up. We need people who are competent, problem solvers.
However, if any Republican leader makes back handed digs against our gal Sarah, the gloves come off. I'll be "putting on the foil".*
*little hockey joke for all lovers of the movie "Slap Shot".
Agreed, and he already has the bus, plus all those illegals he' helped put in school will vote for him, maybe?///
How so? Please explain.
“I have yet to see any proof that palin is a conservative.”
You need to put on your glasses.
AS I said: “I have yet to see any proof that palin is a conservative.”
Oops. The beginning of my post was cut off. I meant to write that Robert Stacy McCain at the American Spectator made a great argument about these so called moderate swing voters.
Palin/Jindal ‘12 BABY!!! Oh Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh
Apparently, you can’t be a social conservative and be well-educated. Nice.
You forget the PUMA’s. They were supposed to come out in battalions on Election Day for McCain/Palin. They voted for The One (piss be upon him) anyway.”
What is the link to those numbers?
What do you call a ‘conservative’?
The next four years will allow Sarah to prove that she is ready for the big leagues, and not just AAA ball.
I know nobody want’s to hear it, but Sarah Palin is dead. the media, if they haven’t done so already, will make sure she is done and the fork is stuck in her by 2010 so she can’t even get re-elected.
The big things the Republicans have against them is the media. They are going to make sure Barack Obama is the most respected, most beloved and most popular president ever. All his mistakes will be covered up. Any national or international catastrophess will be blamed on Bush and Obama will be portrayed as the man who left with unfortunate task of cleaning up after Bush, but the mess is so big that no one can clean it up. The people will be told he is doing so great dispite the huge mess Bush left for him. Barack Obama will be loved by the American people no matter how poorly he does becuase that’s the way the media wants it.
The rest of the Republican field is dismal as well. As I said, Palin is severely damaged goods, Bobby Jindal has little experience and not much of a known persona and Mark Sanford isn’t well known either. I suspect either Romeny or Huckabee will be nominated in 2012 becuase they will be the name everyone recognizes, but the are hardly solid conservatives. Plus the media will portray them as Bush rehashes and the public will rapidly turn their backs on them. Then they’ll go down in defeat in at least a 40 state landslide as the much beloved and respected Barack Obama is re-elected handiliy.
Basically, I am saying is conservatisim is dead in Ameican politics. The Bush and McCain Repubilcans destroyed the party. Then when McCain, back in the Senate, helps pass amnisty for all illegal immigrants they will have paved the way for a permanent Democratic majority in the White House and in the congress as those 20,000,000 lowlifes will now all register Democrat and vote Democrat everytime out. No way in hell for the Republicans to ovewr come that many votes.
What about Mark Sanford?
Hell, she was head and shoulders above the rest already.She had the misfortune of being hamstrung by a complete POS rino.
Jindal is my choice
Was that a babelfish translation?
Look, I have no right to insult anyone about making typos. I make them all the time. But what the heck are you talking about there?
I want to know why don't you think she is a conservative. What makes you say that she is not? Are you arguing that she is not a social conservative, or do you think that she is not a fiscal conservative? By what criteria are you suggesting that she is not a conservative. That was what I was asking.
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.