Even sadder, if so. ;)
Posted on 07/08/2010 3:37:04 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
To understand why Democrats ever picked Mondale, you have to understand where the party — and where the country — was in 1982 and 1983, when the nation’s verdict on Reagan and his policies was far less positive. In those days, with unemployment surging over 10 percent and the president’s popularity slipping to sub-Carter levels, Democrats mistakenly assumed that the ‘80 election had been a mirage. The electorate, they figured, had acted in haste and was rapidly returning to its senses. The results of the 1982 midterms, when Republicans (who had begun the cycle with claims that they’d win back the House) lost 26 House seats, only encouraged this thinking. To these Democrats, putting up Mondale made all the sense in the world. —Steve Kornacki
I appreciated Kornacki’s argument. He makes several good points explaining how a party recovering from a presidential election defeat could so badly misread the political landscape and choose such a poor nominee. It could be that I am underestimating the effect that most Republicans’ sheer contempt for Obama will have on the next nomination contest. When it comes to channeling and expressing this contempt there are quite a few willing to do it, but there aren’t any prominent Republicans that take more delight in it than Palin. If Republicans choose to believe that 2008 was just a fluke and that a re-match of sorts would have a different outcome, Palin would become a very appealing candidate for them. Kornacki is right when he says:
In nominating her, Republicans would be saying to the country, “We have learned nothing these last four years. We have changed nothing.”
Indeed, they have learned nothing during the last four years, and they haven’t really changed much of anything, so Palin would be a good fit with the party’s leaders and activists for that reason, but I remain skeptical that they are really prepared to go down in flames out of little more than pride and spite. I won’t rehearse all of the reasons I have given before why I doubt the GOP would be so self-destructive as to nominate Palin, but there still seem to be too many structural reasons why someone occupying Palin’s political space cannot succeed in a Republican primary contest. The comparison with Mondale is instructive. Palin and Mondale are alike in that they represent the face of the party as it was when it was defeated, but they are quite different in their sources of support. Mondale was the candidate of the party establishment and important interest groups, and Palin has made a point of aligning herself with every possible anti-establishment, insurgent campaign she can find.
While there are some Washington pundits and journalists on the right that continue to take her seriously, she isn’t likely to have the insider support or backing from party leaders. That space is already being filled by Romney, who also enjoys the status of default frontrunner. Despite her positioning as a “populist” insurgent, she seems uninterested in building an organization to challenge better-funded, better-organized rivals, and she is quite unsuited to running as a party reformer brimming with innovative policy ideas. Her positioning as an insurgent puts her at a particular disadvantage in Republican primaries, which tend to favor runners-up and establishment favorites. Because of their overconfidence and their extremely low opinion of Obama, Republicans may end up nominating a Mondale-like candidate in 2012, but I still have a hard time seeing how Palin gets there. In many ways, Romney has a much easier path to the nomination, and he has just reminded everyone why he would be a spectacularly unsuccessful general election candidate.
I think he likes Ron “shrimp boats” Paul
Besides Bush years were only bad in the MSM narrative that comes apart day by day. Carter years were genuine and utter disaster.
And finally, what actually do you have against Palin’s policies. Mondale was a candidate to return the country back into the Carter's abyss. Even if everyone assumes that Palin takes country back to Bush's time, majority will agree that it ain't bad at all, especially considering the present glorious leader...
The polls show Palin would probably not be a successful nominee, regardless of whether its her own fault or the fault of the massive campaign against her. Romney would fare better, but is still an unlikely winner, IMHO. I wonder who the author thinks WOULD be a good nominee? Mitch Daniels? The Huckster? Pawlenty?
Even sadder, if so. ;)
You're getting desperate. Don't worry, so are a lot of others.
R and D victories have totally different dynamics.
Democrats win by painting the Republicans as mean-spirited ... corrupt hypocrites, racism, starving children, etc. The Republicans often cooperate by painting themselves as mean-spirited.
Republicans have won in the past two different ways
a) paint the Dems as weak, naive, incompetent on national defense and international affairs. Bush won on this both times.
b) taxcuts and fiscal sanity.
Usually the Dems need nothing more than their one trick pony.
Usually the Republicans need 2 or more issues to bring a coalition together.
Don’t try to bring logic or consistency to this analysis. Democrats can be a corrupt and mean-spirited as they want and benefit from the double standard that exists, whether you like it or not.
Jimmy Carter can seem to have a great success with the Israel’s Begin-Egypt’s Sadat peace agreement and get no votes for it thanks to incompetence on Iran.
A Romney nomination all but guarantees a Tea Party candidate and a Dem plurality win.
I think it’s undecided whether that Dem will be Baraq or Hillary.
Looks like you don't read his (Daniel Larison's) blog.
That's not surprising as it's usually a long slow slog.
Anyway, he hates Romney more than I'd have believed it possible for one human being to hate another.
You can see some of that at the end of this post: "In many ways, Romney has a much easier path to the nomination, and he has just reminded everyone why he would be a spectacularly unsuccessful general election candidate."
I suppose Romney probably would be unsuccessful as well, but don't share Larison's contempt for the man, which is in line with his general contempt for Republicans but is much more intense than his dislike of Bush or McCain.
Daniel Larison's coming from some strange paleocon fantasy place -- maybe it's RonPaulLand, I don't know. Anyway, Romney's not his man.
Mitt-hatred isn't confined to loyal Republicans by any means. Larison's feeling that Mitt might be the nominee isn't a sign of his respect for Romney, but of his contempt for most of the Republican Party.
I doubt it. I don’ think Ron Paul will figure in any more than he always has.
Using him as an excuse is downright weird, but also convenient.
What is this goober smoking? McCain is the face the failed Republican party machine. Palin was McCain's hail Mary attempt to capture the base that STILL despises him.
Utter claptrap. Republicans would be saying "We are nominating a conservative candidate this time".
Folks, I remember the Carter years, I remember the Reagan years, and I remember Walter Mondale. Walter Mondale, in style and substance, is so much not Sarah Palin (and Sarah Palin so much not Walter Mondale) that the comparison is pure comedy.
“What is this goober smoking?”
Palin and Mondale should only be mentioned in the same sentence if someone confused her with Reagan.
Leaving aside his leftism, Mondale is establishment and elitist to the core. Reagan, although the incumbent, was the populist, anti-Establishment candidate in 1984, as Palin will be in 2012. I don’t know where this nitwit was in 1984, but he sure wasn’t following Presidential politics. Yet he tries to draw analogies. After all, he has a Ph.D from the University of Chicago. How impressed are we all!
Humor and irony to the max.......
Daniel Larison is one massively deluded nutball if he really believes that above statement. He could not be more wrong.
Sarah Palin does not represent the establishment RINO face of the party; in fact does not even resemble it. She actually represents the GOP Platform, which the RINOs obviously have never bothered to read.
Prolly in diapers, if that.
Palin won’t run in 2012
Christie is green and is mature enough to recognize his immaturity at the present time. He has a bright future in the party.
DeMint? Strong possibilities.
Jindal? Though he has exercised strong leadership in the face of the recent Gulf disaster, the bad taste from his SOTU response 18 months ago yet lingers.
Huckabee? No thanks; enough compassion, enough politicians. We need principle and leadership.
Newt Gingrich is perhaps the biggest bat we have on our bench. The man knows the law, knows the political landscape, is a genius.
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.