Posted on 11/08/2008 10:38:58 PM PST by RobinMasters
Long before John McCain delivered his concession speech, which reminded even the liberal left of his dignity and courage, his staffers had plunged into their next task. It is, sadly, one they had begun two weeks prior to the election, a time when their candidate most needed them.
But rather than shoring up McCain’s weakly explained policies on the failing economy — the most important issue to voters – his staffers were already scrambling to lay blame for their faltering campaign on McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. It was a move that some saw coming long before it happened, as unnamed staffers complained to the press that Palin had “gone rogue” and was already positioning her own political future.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I agree. She really was mccain except with more spunk and for ANWR
DID HE???
Well then screw him too.
Yeah. I was wondering if he wore out his kneepads like Paulson did courting Queen Nancy.
I’m more upset about cantor’s alternative plan that would have suspended dividends and create this mortgage insurance scheme. It made the bailout opponents look like idiots.
The real plan was the Mike Pence plan and cantor buried it.
You hit the nail on the head. Combine her drawing capacity, charisma and natural poise with her strong Conservative message (NOT this RINO drivel we get shoved down our throats by the RNC) and you'll see a Ronaldus Maximus in a dress. She would be a hard candidate to beat.
One more thing ..... Don't let even ONE McPain campaign staffer or aide within 50 miles of her.
Nam Vet
Will he be too young in 3 years?
What exactly is “too young”? The “older guys” haven’t done us much good lately.
The more I hear Jindal, the more I like him. I just want to see if he can govern close to the level of his rhetoric.
The Rats suckered the Repubs ONCE AGAIN on the buy-oout - just like they did with Bush I and the tax increase. They blame Bush II and the Repubs when in effect it was mainly their bill because Bush and the Congressional Republican were stupid enough to back it.
Disgusting.
mccain absolutely needed someone like Palin to even have a chance. Conservatives were starving for a reason to vote for mccain because they didn’t want to just vote against Obama.
But that doesn’t mean she’d be the best pick for the top of the ticket next time.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I actually do think Palin can make a good comeback. The reason? Like very few politicians, she broke through that layer of cultural celebrity-dom (regardless of its positive and negative connotations). This isn’t another Quayle situation, not by a longshot. Admittedly, she’ll have to manage herself well over these coming years, and she perhaps needs her supporters to remain highly vocal on her behalf. But she’s in a better position than most people seem to think, as they are currently looking from the dim perspective of this past week’s big defeat.
True but it's a subjective. in 2012 he will be 42, probably a little young for President but one year older than Dan Quayle when he became VP under George H. Bush. Time will tell. I'm ok with Jindal, he's young enough that he can move up in either 2012, 2016 or 2020 and still be a young guy.
“But that doesn’t mean she’d be the best pick for the top of the ticket next time”
******
That wil be up to Republicans do decide in 2012. Even though its early days yet, and no one knows what will happen in 4 years time, I am gonna bet she will smoke the other candidates and win the nomination come 2012.
Look at Alaska’s economic growth right now. While most states are suffering, Alaska is now growing faster than most other states in this country.
Look at her 80% approval ratings in Alaska. Obambi has just started off with a 52% approval ratings.
A valid point. If I find someone better (or as good), I’d consider it. My decision isn’t cast in stone, but he’s who I’m going with for the time being.
Besides, perhaps a little JFK-type youth in one of our candidates wouldn’t hurt.
true, although the country today is not the same country it was back in 1980 when Reagan won. Demographically especially.
In 1980 the ration of the white vote to the black vote was 88/10 +78 white. This year it was 74/13+ 61 white. A -17 swing. Considering blacks always vote 90%+ for the dems and the GOP always counts on the white vote to win, that’s not trending in a good direction. The white vote shrinking from 88% in 1980 to 74% this year and likely lower than that in 2016 and beyond means it will be tougher and tougher to win. If the white/black ratio was the same this year as it was when Reagan ran, McCain would won with just a tad less than the 51% Reagan did. When you add in the hispanic vote, it’s even worse. In 80 it was 88 white/12 black and hispanic for a +76. This year it was 74/21 for a +53. Again, a bad trend.
Also, the moment cuited Reagan. He was the change in 1980. The conservative alternative to Carter’s failed and discredited liberalism It was easy for him to win. He wasn’t trying to replace a discredited and unpopular conservative President. McCain was. Now, Obama is the change and Bush is Carter.
If Obama and the dems screw up, like with Carter, the GOP will be fine in 2012. If they don’t and the economy comes back as it likely will given business cycles and the fact that recessions don’t last for four years, things will be tougher and 2016 will be the next best chance.
Swing! ...and a miss.
Sarah Palin is fine, but you will want a true Conservative, a Reagan Conservative, or you will lose again.
Listen to the truth for once, harness FR to raise up a Reaganite, an you will see more red states than you can imagine, and more coattails than you ever thought possible.
And if there is anything we need now, it is coattails.
I think its going to happen to any Republican nominee that doesn’t speak French. It happened to Reagan. It’s the people that don’t buy into that are going to vote for her so don’t take council of your fears.
“Considering blacks always vote 90%+ for the dems and the GOP always counts on the white vote to win, that’s not trending in a good direction”
******
Blacks have always voted Dims in all recent elections, and we have still won most of the presidential elections over the past 30 years.
Plus Asians vote overwhelmingly for Republicans, and the Asian population is growing faster than the black population.
Black population growth has slowed down quite a bit recently thanks to the liberals embrace of abortion. Latino population keeps growing yes, but even then, the recent crackdown on illegal’s has led to an increase of those returning to Mexico by themselves.
And legal Latino’s tend to vote different from the millions of illegal Latino’s who continue to fraudulently vote in this country.
We will gain seats in congress in 2010.
You can take that to the bank.
30 years? We won in 80, 84, 88, 00, and 04. They won in 92, 96 and 08. 5 of 8, but only 2 of the last 5.
We won the popular vote 4 of 5 from 72-88, and we’ve now lost it 4 of 5 from 92-08.
The white vote has shrank from 81% in 00 to 77% in 04 to 74% in 08. In 12 it’ll probably be 72% or less.
Yes Black growth has slowed, but thanks to Obama, their turnout surged. The same #s will come out in 12. Blacks jumped from 11% in 04 to 13% in 08, possibly even higher in 12. The dems went from 88-11 in 04 to 95-4 in 08. Might not seem like a lot but it’s net shift of 3.4 pts or so(out of the total 9 pt shift or so that took place) to the dems from 04. When you consider Bush only beat Kerry by 2.5 pts or so and got 50.8%, that’s a big deal. The shift in the black vote alone was enough to bring the dems even.
I haven’t even mentioned the shift in the hispanic vote from 59-40 Kerry to 68-31 Obama. Hispanic turnout jumped from 8% to 9% and the dems went from a +19 to a +36, a net shift of another 1.4 pts or so in the popular vote. A lot of that is younger hispanics and no doubt a backlash against immigration that isn’t likely to change, especially if Obama passes amnesty of some sort which he likely will. Al those new illegals are gold for the dems.
So the shift in Blacks and Hispanics alone was around a net +5pts, enough to give Obama a 51-49 win even if the white vote stayed exactly the same or even slightly increased for the GOP, which in this economy and Bush’s huge unpopularity it had no chance of doing.
Asians go overwhelmingly GOP? Since When? Gore won them 55-41, Kerry won them 54-40 and Obama won them 66-31. A shift from +14 to +35, more than doubling the margin. A net shift of another .4 pts to the dems in the pop vote. 3 straight wins of +14 or more looks like Asians are pretty solidly dem to me. Dole did beat Clinton 48-44 and Bush beat him 55-31, but 92 and 96 are a long time ago now. The asian vote is solidly dem.
Add in the other minorites(Arabs, Indians(both native and the subcontinent variety), Africans and soley from increases in the turnout and margins among blacks, hispanics, asians and other minorities Obama had a net shift of 5.5 pts from 2004 to 51.5% to start with even if the white vote stays the same as in 2004.
The white shifted slightly dem to +12 from +17, but the +12 is the same margin it was for Bush in 2000. Overall a net shift of 3.5 pts or so in the pop vote. Again given Bush’s approval, the Iraq War, hte anti incumbent/GOP mood since 2006 and the economy(among other things) it’s no surprise there was a slight drop in the white vote.
But 60% of the shift to Obama was because of minorities(90% of which was blacks and hispanics). That’s a big deal.
It’s the shift in minorities that is deadly going forward. Look at the SW where the hispanic vote killed us in NV and NM. Look at FL where the hispanic vote went from 56-44 Bush to 57-42 Obama, a +27 swing to the dems. Immigration backlash and an apparent increase in Puerto Ricans in FL relative to Cubans were two big reasons for that. Younger hispanics also went heavily dem andthey’re only growing. Even young Cubans don’t care about Castro anymore so the GOP/anti-communist thing has less of a pull than it used to. Ironically, Clinton’s Elian fiasco cost Gore FL and the WH(cubans went from 65% GOP in 96 to 80% GOP in 00, the difference in a 537 vote race) and now the immigration thing hurt us with hispanics in key states and nationwide.
It’s only going to grow in those states.
It’s a major issue going forward.
Listen, it’s simple: Palin is smart and trustworthy, but she is not a good impromptu talker. Go to youtube and watch the interviews. She is a big asset to the GOP, but if you think she could beat Obama in four years, you’ve been smoking something...
I’d be for Sarah at the top of the ticket except that she allowed her enemies (the media) to define her as not-so-smart. Newt and Quayle had similar problems. Once that image is created, it’s difficult or impossible to change. And, as we’ve just witnessed, the voters are all about image.
Personally I think it’s not just the GOP that needs purging, but some here on FR as well.
Over 90% of Republicans adore her. Over 60% want her to run as President. Yet the 10% who dislike her are fluttering about the board trying to compare her to a man who NEVER achieved this kind of support for a potential run for the presidency.
The people that matter are the grassroots and they adore her. Quite honestly so long as that support remains relatively unchanged, she’s in a great position to challenge in ‘12. hat gives four years to work on shifting a few millions votes. Quite doable.
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.