Skip to comments.Sarah Palin Versus the Field with 2006 as a Barometer
Posted on 05/07/2011 7:47:04 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
I have observed that the polls and the news readers have taken to reminding us that Sarah Palin's nomination spells certain defeat for the GOP in 2012. Let's examine the question of Sarah Palin's prowess as a candidate, measured against the current field:
It has been noted that former Senator Rick Santorum won his Senate seat in a big GOP year (1994) and lost it big in a Democrat year (2006), sweeping in with one tide and out with another. This is evidence of weakness as a candidate. Let's examine the rest of this field, using 2006 as the barometer.
Tim Pawlenty won reelection in 2006 by the skin of his teeth, less that one half of one per cent. He is no political power house if, as an incumbent with no scandal, he can BARELY hold his seat against a no name Democrat challenger. Had it not been for the Green Party siphoning off Democrat votes, Pawlenty would have lost.
Huckabee, who was Lieutenant Governor, backed into the Governor's Mansion in 1996 when the previous governor went to jail. He managed to hold it through the salad years of Clinton's impeachment and Bush's early ascendancy, but the polls In Arkansas showed him losing badly in the big Democrat year of 2006, so he tucked tail and took his traveling medicine show out West to run for President.
Mitt Romney similarly saw his poll numbers so low that his defeat for reelection in 2006 was all but certain. Rather than face certain defeat and the end of his Presidential ambitions, Romney followed the same path as Huckabee.
So which candidate successfully swam AGAINST the tide of a big Democrat year in 2006 and registered two huge victories? SARAH PALIN. First, she dispatched Governor and three time U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary by 51-19%. Then she entered the general election campaign. Unlike Pawlenty, who was aided by a challenge from the fringe left, Sarah Palin faced a third Party Challenge by a former GOPer, Andrew Halcro, who self financed a campaign against her and drew nearly 10% of the vote. Facing these adversities, and alone among the rising stars of the GOP, Sarah Palin swam hard against the big Democrat tsunami of 2006. She easily defeated popular two term former Governor Tony Knowles by 8% (the polls near election day said it was a dead heat). That, my friends, is empirical evidence of electoral prowess.
So when the Lamesteam media is telling us who is and who is not electable, based upon their early (and "cooked") polls let's follow the wise counsel of former Governor and 1928 Presidential Candidate Al Smith: "Let's look at the record." And, more to the point, let's force the media to look at the record.
If we do that, they will be forced to acknowledge that it is Sarah Palin--based not only on her great successes of 2010, but also on her tremendous "swim against the tide" in 2006-- who is by far the most formidable candidate the GOP could field in 2012.
We can’t force the media to do anything, because their views are dogma to them.
Sarah Palin understands her strengths just the way that martial arts fighters understand body mechanics, leverage, etc. She is ridiculed out of fear because she does not crumble from the media assaults.
I anticipate a great race from her and her victory. Election day is eighteen MONTHS away. She has set her pace accordingly.
I don’t believe that she is going to run but if she does I hope the rest (Mitt, Huck, Newt and Daniels) stay out. Leave the field Cain, Palin, Santorum, Paul, Pawlenty...Johnson. Yep, in that order too.
Palin 2012 YES!
Madame President Sarah Palin(strike up Hail to the Chief)and First Dude Todd Palin.
I’d vote for her if I could but I suspect she isn’t running.
And, it’s disgusting and wrong but the media has done a really effective job of trashing her.
“We cant force the media to do anything, because their views are dogma to them.”
No one understands this than Sarah Palin. She knows that she will get little help from the media and that small bit may be negative in some regard. She knows she has to get to the people through other means. That is why she uses Twitter and Facebook so much. She is a smart cookie and a good “general”.....she will fight the battle without the help of the prejudiced establishment...that is another thing I love about this gutsy woman. She knows her enemies and she knows how to use them.
Huck would have surely lost a re-election race because he was too liberal for a center right state (Arkansas) whereas Mitt would have surely lost his re-election race because he was too conservative for an ultraleft state (Massachusetts).
That being said, neither of them are conservative at all on a national scale. Huck would win the caucus in Iowa because it is tailor-made for him: socially conservative but fond of big government populist issues like ethanol. Likewise, Mitt would win the primary in New Hampshire because it is tailor-made for him: fiscally conservative but full of RINO moderates who love giving the finger to social conservatives.
Nationwide, Sarah would hand either their head on a plate in a one on one contest.
here is an old article that says something similar before Gov Palin became a threat to the One and the gop Dc establishment:
The wipeout in the 2006 election left Republicans in such a state of dejection that they’ve overlooked the one shining victory in which a Republican star was born. The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state.
Very valid points. She is a problem election winner. She also won a lot of votes in 2008, despite a terrible top of the ticket. The exit polls and post-election polls were rigged to create a narrative for the left that she was a turn-off, that they used to continuously bat her over the head since. She still would have a hell of a battle to win a national election, but this shows she has the capability to pull it off.
“Leave the field Cain, Palin, Santorum, Paul, Pawlenty...Johnson. Yep, in that order too.”
Won’t happen that way, but if it did I’d like to see a Palin/Cain ticket. There’s absolutely no way she wouldn’t win the primaries in that field.
Palin’s negatives mean nothing right now. Hillary Clinton had similar negatives right up till she announced a run for the White House and quickly turned those around. Save for the caucus states that Obama dominated through organization, she would have been the Democrat nominee.
Thinking back on the debate the other night, had Palin been out there she would have blown that 2nd Tier field out of the water with stature alone.
It’s pretty clear to me that Palin is probably the best candidate we have. Once she gets in her overall negatives will fall and she has every chance to win the nomination and defeat Hussein.
I am a Palin supporter, but I don’t think that the comparison is fair.
Alaska is a weird Republican state, but it is Republican. Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts are otherwise.
Even Arkansas has a thick Democrat streak, and only has started voting Republican in recent years as a recovering battered wife who is prone to relapses.
Frankly, I kinda wish that Romney governed Massachusetts as if he didn’t care about re-election, or any future election. Pawlenty (based on what I saw in the last debate) is still afraid of offending his eighth grade typing teacher. Santorum has won problematic elections before. He pooch-kicked a tough one in a tough year. Staying away from Specter wouldn’t have helped enough, it would have just changed the people responsible for the 18% margin (but it did sully the Santorum brand).
Palin is a game-changer, and is a gifted executive with unusually good instincts. That, and her being on target on 90% of the issues is enough to back her. I see no need to brand Pawlenty and the rest as losers in order to support Palin. Well ... maybe Romney. He’s a loser in that Michael Huffington kind of way, only he has a wife who won’t drive him to deviancy.
Well, we know now that facebook numbers do not guarantee success, yes? ;-)
I just think that Palin wins if she runs. She wouldn’t be my 1st choice to be the President, (she’d be 2nd), but if there was some separate category of Republican Nominee, or “Candidate” vs “President”, she’d be my #1 for that.
You have to be famous enough to win on the Republican side, and there are very few who are. Palin absolutely is one.
Known by everyone, known as a Republican, known as a Conservative, well liked by Republicans and Conservatives,
shiny and charismatic. Beaten harshly by the media, who looked under every rock and found nothing.
exit polls showed Palin helped McCain. never saw an exit poll that showed otherwise.
She is clearly the best, by a mile.
The rest of them are either:
a. RINOs and lefties. (Huntsman, Huck, Mitt, etc.)
b. Beginners who are badly in need of proving themselves and gaining experience (Cain, West, etc.)
c. Crazy (Ron Paul)
d. Election losers (Santorum, Pawlenty)
e. Great publicists but not to be trusted (Trump)
Then there’s Sarah. Rock solid values, brilliant leader, proven record, drawer of enthusiastic crowds wherever she goes, HATED by the MSM and the left—for good reason.
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.