Posted on 03/07/2011 8:46:38 AM PST by RobinMasters
Gallup says that not having a clear presidential front-runner in the Republican party is historically abnormal:
“The wide-open battle for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination — with nearly a three-way tie among Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney – is quite different from the typical pattern observed in past Republican nomination contests. In Gallup polling since 1952, Republican Party nomination races always featured a clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign, and in almost all cases, that front-runner ultimately won the nomination.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Your observation matches the thought behind Post #19.
Interestingly, Ronald Reagan wanted to keep making TV shows, but Bobby Kennedy convinced him he should go into politics as a candidate.
I'm sure the Zer0 and hundreds of other leftists have convinced Sarah to do the same and she knows exactly when to do what. She learned it from Reagan.
A link to the Gallup report is here.
The internals are fairly interesting, though ... it appears that in most cases, Palin and Romney tend to draw from the same demographic groups (education and income being a couple of significant exceptions).
Huckabee's internals are a bit surprising..... Surprising enough, in fact, to make me wonder about the reliability of the poll.
It's a phone-based poll, and the pollsters have long been lamenting the difficulties they're having getting good samples. There's a built-in bias toward those who want to participate in the poll.
“Palin is hated and feared by the Left. I’d crawl over broken glass for her.”
I agree with you on all points. The problem is, she has been propagandized and maligned to the point that most independents presently dismiss her out of hand. She, and she alone, will have to be the one to dispel the slanders if she is to have a chance in the general election.
She will have a steep uphill slog, not only against the enemy before her but also with “friendly fire” aimed at her back by the likes of the Bush matriarchal coven and GOP catamites like Rove and trough feeders like Murkowski.
The others don’t seem to have what it takes to succeed if elected, even if they do win the general. I will take the long shot possibility for an honest and effective conservative though, over somewhat better odds for another wooden nickel from the Bohemian Grove.
Dark Horse recommendation: Heather Wilson
New Mexico Representative for around 10 years.
May be considering running for senate/
She just published an excellent article on the state of our graduate education: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012104554.html
AF Academy Grad
Rhodes Scholar - got D Phil there vs the normal master’s degree obtained by most of the Rhodes types.
Brilliant and personable.
She’d have to be dead for ten years in order for her IQ to drop to only 10x that of the Obamaloon.
The GOP might, but Americans tired of this crap won’t.
I’d say that’s true, with the caveat that this also assumes the drilling operations would have been watched better than the one which created the recent Gulf of Mexico spill. I get the sense that some nod-and-wink between the Obama administration and British Petroleum allowed the safety measures at the site to badly deteriorate. If Sarah Palin had been watching over it, maybe the disaster could have been averted.
If you’re a republican who likes Obamacare, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who wants gays in the military, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who supports gay marriage, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who wants to protect a woman’s right to murder their baby, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who believes there are not enough gun control laws, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who wants business to give all of America’s secrets to Red China, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who likes mandates, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who likes taxes which are renamed fees, vote for Romney.
If you’re a republican who believes in reaching across the aisle and partnering with democrats to reach their goals, vote for Romney.
In other words, if you’re a republican who is really a democrat, vote for Romney.
Palin guarantees 4 more years of O’Bama.
Obviously very smart and has a good background, but her record makes her seem more wonkish than presidential. A good VP pick, perhaps.
Those are two of the several qualities, that a quality candidate must have.
She can turn their propaganda around on them by getting people to rise up against manipulation and propaganda.
I agree with you.
Agree. Also, I still have this sneakin’ suspicion that it’s neither Romney nor Huck nor Palin. Don’t know who it might be, but I just sense none of them can get the large mass of the right behind them.
I might also add tht one of the greatest fears of these candidates is overexposure. The campaigns go on too long and people get burnt out on them.
I strongly agree.
Huckabee’s internals are a bit surprising..... Surprising enough, in fact, to make me wonder about the reliability of the poll.
********************************
I too have real problems believing Huckabee’s vaunted strengths and popularity. I should be among his core on all but one count, and while I do not dislike the man, I do NOT want him in authority, and I do not respect his record as governor nor his intellect. I have never seen any support for him where I live, which again should be a significant part of his base.
Meh. Something is off here.
I think this is actually a good thing. It is time to fight it out on our side and see who is left standing. I think Palin will do fine.
And for all those who say Palin should be staying above the fray and not responding to the petty stuff, that’s what Bush did - he never responded. Palin is a “take no prisoners” kinda gal. I think that is what we need right now.
1932 Democratic Party Nomination (from: wikipedia)
Democratic candidates:
* Franklin D. Roosevelt, governor of New York
* Al Smith, former governor of New York
* John Nance Garner, U.S. Speaker of the House from Texas
* James A. Reed, U.S. senator from Missouri
* Albert Ritchie, governor of Maryland
* William H. Murray, governor of Oklahoma
The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1932 was New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). By the time the 1932 Democratic National Convention opened in Chicago, FDR was believed to have more delegate votes than all of his opponents combined. However, due to the "two-thirds" nominating rule then used by the Democrats, FDR's opponents hoped that he would be unable to obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to win, and that they could gain on later ballots.
On the first three ballots Roosevelt had well over a majority of the delegate vote, but still lacked the two-thirds majority. Before the fourth ballot his managers - James Farley and Louis Howe - struck a deal with House Speaker John Nance Garner, who was also a candidate. Garner agreed to drop out of the race and support FDR, and in return FDR agreed to name Garner as his running mate. With this agreement Roosevelt won the two-thirds majority and with it the presidential nomination.
..and so the candidate who was confined to a wheelchair became a four-term President. Economically and geopolitically, it's 1931 now (but not exactly.)
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.