People were very aware of her. They had a chance to vote for her. They didn’t. Instead they voted for 0bama. Either a candidate has it, or they don’t.
If Palin ran against 0bama in 2012, everyone would say “we’ve seen this race before.” And they would be right.
It would amount to a rematch, just like Mondale vs. Reagan, Stevenson vs. Eisenhower, or Dewey vs. Truman. All three of those races had candidates who ran on opposing tickets 4 years earlier, and all were considered rematches, even though some had been VP candidates in the prior election. And all three challengers went down to even worse defeats the second time around.
Rematches are always ill-conceived.
*Rematches are always ill-conceived.*
Your opinion.
We don’t have time to play games. It might make many happy on FR that Obama continues his path to Marxism,
there won’t be an election in 2012.
Then some won’t have to worry, they will have their
Obama.
You must a disgruntled cheer leader for socialist Romney!
Reagan lost the GOP primary against Ford. Nuff said.
I'm not saying that because I think Palin would win or not, merely that this is an unsupportable conclusion. Even Obama lost an election. It is a truism that isn't true.
Wrong! John McCain ran for the presidency, not Sarah Palin.
Whether or not you "choose" to acknowledge the facts, the main stream media backed Obama for president because they are mainly liberals. From what I've read, 95% of black voters went for Obama. See any racism there?
I've read and heard plenty and my conclusion is that Democrats/liberals are hell-bent to destroy every value that has made our country great. I'm not being mean or vindictive by saying that.
The federal gov't, congress and courts are pushing their agenda to make the U.S. a socialist country, one in which everyone shares the fruits of their labor with others, many who don't contribute a thing.
This government is determined to take over our lives and that equals taking away our freedoms. Future generations won't know what real freedom is because the history books will deliberately omit the facts.
As to Governor Palin being a viable candidate in 2012, I wouldn't rule her out based on the elections you referred to: Reagan came into office 28 years ago, Eisenhower, 56 years ago and Truman, 64 years ago. We are dealing with a whole different set of problems today, so I disagree that anyone can, out of hand, decide that what took place 30-65 years ago is relevant today in determining election outcome.
Oh stop. People had a chance to vote for her as VP and watch her bite her tongue or moderate her positions according to John McCain’s whim. They didn’t have the opportunity to vote for her as President where she would control the dialogue and policy set forth.