Posted on 06/05/2011 2:52:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
Posted on June 04 2011 - 11:20 PM - Posted by: Nicole Coulter
So, Sarah Palin can’t win independents, blah, blah, blah. It’s all we hear.
Let’s talk a little about this red herring, shall we?
First off, it’s not true that Palin can’t win independents.
Palin won the governorship of Alaska quite handily. Almost two-thirds of Alaskans are not registered with a political party. They are … um, independent. (Kinda like a lot of the Rolling Thunder folks, Gov. Palin met last weekend). Alaska’s unique characteristics, including a 15% Native Alaskan population, “provide fertile ground for the emergence of candidates and ideas that at times appear to include the whole political spectrum,” according to one study.
Hmmm … candidates and ideas that appeal to the whole political spectrum? That sorta sounds like Palin when she enjoyed an 88% approval rating in the summer of 2008 after passing bi-partisan legislation focusing on reforming government and developing energy resources.
Secondly, in all this talk about independents, let’s get real. There are very few actual “swing” voters. Most so-called independents tend to vote predominantly for one party or the other despite choosing not to affiliate formally with the party they usually vote for.
A recent report in Salon explained:
Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk estimates that 5 million people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and then voted for a Republican in 2010.
Boy, 5 million people! That is not even 6 percent of the entire voting electorate! (Or maybe even less, because the number of people who claim they voted for Obama is probably high.)
[...]
Truly independent voters are still mythical creatures. They exist in the imaginations of commentators who’ve spent most of their adult lives in Washington, D.C. Otherwise, the electorate is largely made up of Democratic voters and Republican voters. In this last election, more Republican voters showed up than Democratic voters. In 2008, the opposite was true.
Wait just a gosh darn minute! You’re telling me that this whole 2012 presidential election could just boil down to turnout? No freaking way! So basically the party that mobilizes more excited voters than the other wins? Unbelievable!
So, wait, um, doesn’t that suggest that we need a nominee who generates … like … actual enthuasiam? Wasn’t that why Palin was added to the ticket in 2008, because McCain generated so little enthusiasm among conservatives? Didn’t she generate that enthusiasm, attracting tens of thousands to rallies and raising tens of millions seemingly overnight, which was almost unheard of for a VP nominee?
And won’t the loosely-affiliated independent voters be so fed up with Obama by 2012 they’ll elect whomever is opposing him? So doesn’t that mean that whoever wins the GOP nomination, has a solid chance of being elected?
Howard Dean thinks so.
And what does it take to win a nomination? Oh yeah, base support. (Remember when Hillary and Barack were fighting for their base by seeing who could present the most liberal stance on Iraq and soaking it to the rich?) That’s what you DO in a primary. You appeal to your freaking BASE. Then you PIVOT to the middle for the general election. To suggest that someone should pivot to appeal to “independents” in primary season is rather ridiculous, don’t you think?
These idiots are arguing about winning over Democratic independents … while taking the conservatives and independent Tea Partiers for GRANTED.
So, next time you hear some GOP know-it-all professing that Palin could never win over independents, ask him/her if Mitt Romney can win over the base. Because if you want to become president, you first gotta convince your own side. (Sorry Mitt … manmade global warming and mandates aren’t gonna cut it on our side.) Then you can make your case to the other side. If you head into the general election with weak base support, you’re gonna lose. Because while the base may hold their noses to vote for you … they will never generate the enthusiasm you’ll need to carry the day.
Let’s all seriously try to imagine this many people greeting Romney at his next campaign rally.
Thanks..great logic in it.
We have done the amateur hour thing long enough. I would appreciate the Palinbots not stomping me into mush over this post... whatnot.
I see us blowing this one again. Tis what we do. Palin can not head the ticket. We need a man with credibility based on past achievement.
Think 2016, if we still have a ballot come then.
Anyone, even I, can beat obama.
We need a man? Name one.
I haven’t seen a real man in the whole lot.
I haven’t seen one man in the Republican party beside West who can speak their piece without wimpering.
Sarah doesn’t mind calling the President a liar, where is a man with that kind of nerve?
The idea of quoting Howard Dean to bolster an argument for Palin as POTUS is, well, a little odd, but this excerpt might be the only time I've ever seen or heard him speak sanely about an issue. Article (from themoderatevoice.com) was posted on another FR thread by 2DV.
It's also a pretty clear sign that the Dems are coming to the realization that Palin presents a credible threat.
Democrats capture the White House in 2008, warns that Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year.
“I think she could win,” Dean told The Hill in an interview Friday. “She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win.” Dean warns the sluggish economy could have more of a political impact than many Washington strategists and pundits assume.
“Any time you have a contest — particularly when unemployment is as high as it is — nobody gets a walkover,” Dean said. “Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway,” Dean said.
I will not rathole here. Obviously I can not defend a position that does not declare Sarah my Madonna Lord Savior of the universe, therefore I am found... wanting.
Calling her supporters Palinbots instead of,well supporters, is evidence of your PDS so the veracity of your post is,to be very very kind,suspect.
As for “we need a man” blah blah and you are not talking about combat,football or fatherhood...
Someone has female issues.
Well as soon as you come up with a salient arguement devoid of the usuaul RINO hyperbole and MSM rantings, give us a ring.
One does not have to declare a candidate their “savior” because salient thinkers don’t look to “saviors”. They look to those who are willing to enter the breach as did Admiral David Farragut at Mobile Bay.
There are some like Allen West who have this trait and Sarah is included, but Allen has emphatically stated that even he is not ready, even with carrying his can of gasoline through hell if need be.
The one thing that we must all remember, George Washington was also a reluctant leader, but when called upon, he did it magnificantly with honor and humility.
You simpering culo.
;^\/
She is as qualified as the one. I do not need to rathole, but I have the time.
She stepped down from a position of authority that could have granted her a record of achievement for political expediency.
She has a million right wing nitwits (I am one BTW) that like her bumm, face, boobs, daughters... that have gone rabid on anyone who does not see their view of whatever they believe she will do. Politics is not bean bags and bouncing titts.
There are things that are politically viable, and things that are politically expedient.
She is expedient, not viable. Nothing to do with sex, for the love of god, this racist misogynist favors a West/Palin campaign. She can not lead the ticket. It will not work at this point in time after what we have seen.
I care not about being called wahtever... Been there, done that. NBD
I agree with you.
You demonstrate why the term is Palin “DERANGEMNT” Syndrome.
Putting Palin on your West ticket was most likely an insincere gesture to deflect dissent from Palin supporters—those you call “Palinbots.”
In fact,I think you are a Mitt supporter also using West as a shield so you can bash Palin.
Your mendacity is impressive—worthy of a Romney fan.
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.