[LowTaxesEqualsProsperity]

A not-even-one-term governor from a small population state, who had negative approval ratings there, and who was selected to the Veep spot by a loser candidate in a desparation move, is not an ideal candidate.

We must win in ‘12. We need to pick someone with lower negatives who people will feel secure voting for.

As much as I like Sarah personally, she is simply too risky to nominate against Zero. We will have many more “safer” true conservatives running in ‘12.

[Huck]

I agree with you that the electorate will be looking for someone "safer." Not as a question of ideology, but as a question of competence. Palin may be fully competent, but I'm not sure a majority of voters will agree.

But it's pointless arguing about it. If she runs, the primaries will decide. I'm hoping she at least faces a good solid opponent in the primaries.

[excopconservative]

We will have many more “safer” true conservatives running in ‘12.

---

What makes a candidate “safe”? Was Meg Whitman a safe moderate candidate? Plenty of money, a plan to balance CA budgets, well spoken, lots of executive experience, no extreme views, but she lost. She lost because she had no core value system that voters could identify with. Other than Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and to a lesser degree, Newt Gingrich the candidates suggested as possibles for 2012 were missing in action in 2010. They have already lost with the large body of tea party voters who made the difference this year. In 2012 voters will not be looking for the not-quite-Obama candidate. They will be looking for the anti-Obama candidate.