You're right, Sarah wouldn't. But Sheila would!
Posted on 07/19/2011 7:32:24 PM PDT by Ocarterma
Who has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination?
(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...
You really do live in Dreamland.
Paul is not a conservative; he is a liberal. He is not recognized as a tea party candidate except by his deluded cultists.
Sarah Palin knows this and knows that if she were to run and win the nomination, a leftist loon like Ron Paul would be toxic to her campaign.
Ron Paul is a useful idiot tool of the left.
They are both damned dead wrong..........Palin would take supporters away from Perry, as well as from Bachmann!
You’re the “dumass” (SIC), which isn’t a nice thing to say to anyone, but in your case, it’s true.
You're right, Sarah wouldn't. But Sheila would!
The polls indicate otherwise. Watch what happens in Iowa for the Straw Poll. He raised a half a million bucks so far today. He’s certain to be a factor. I can say that there isn’t anyone else I’d be more certain would be a factor.
Romney could implode. His support is not entirely Mormons, but people who know who he is, and think that he’s basically a reasonable person who would make a plausible nominee. Those people could start to like somone else who’s reasonable or plausible.
But Ron Paul’s people typically will stay on board from here on in.
Palin would certainly be a factor (more certainly than anyone) if she ran.
Bachmann won’t last till the primaries. Perry isn’t tea party. Cain could pick up some of Bachmanns support. And there’s Paul. Tea Party looks to be half. If Palin isn’t in there, there are a lot of tea party votes for Paul and Cain.
Abandoning Perry because of imigration is stupid. No one who truly, truly cares about this country can not vote for the Republican nominee this time. You worry about imigration with Perry? At least he ‘ll hear our outcry. With Obama in a second term it is a certainty to be shoved down our throat along with everything else we suspect Obama has designs on. And, the USSC will be lost for a generation. You think the Kelo decision was bad? Get ready for the complete loss of private property rights in favor of the States desire for revenue. Say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment’s individual right to bear arms. Watch the Commerce clause bloom even more out of control as its used to destroy all rights except the right to marry a.member of the same sex.
ROFL!
This is a tough choice.
I’ll go with Perry here. Love Palin, but I’d take Perry over Palin in a straight up vote between the two of them.
.jpg)
Why? I’ll give it a shot. Are the voters ready for woman President? Would they want to make another historical vote for President, voting for a woman?
Voters took a chance with a black, unexperienced in anything, President and that has not worked out at all.
My opinion is that voters will want to stabilize, not take chances, but will vote conservative.
From what I sense from my conservative family and friends, late 20-30’s don’t like Palin. The media has ruined her for them and the guys don’t want a woman.
The older 60 ish people feel they don’t think a woman can be elected.
That’s it, my shot at the answer to why not Palin.
The Paultards try to turn every thread about the candidates into Paul threads, never realizing how much we're laughing at them.
Strange little cult...
Thank you for voting!
Gov Rick Perry 35.92% (1,124 votes)
Gov Sarah Palin 64.08% (2,005 votes)
Total Votes: 3,129
Gov Rick Perry 35.88% (1,128 votes)
Gov Sarah Palin 64.12% (2,016 votes)
Total Votes: 3,144
Ron Paul will NEVER be president,nor a VEEP. His cult following is teensy and everyone else ( conservatives and GOPers ) can't stand him, think that he is a KOOK, and/or would never vote for him. Hell, I have a better chance at being president than he has and I've no interest in running.
(Sound of grey_whiskers purring).
From An Insomniac's Recap of the Elections:
So far, if one just looks at the raw numbers, one would consider this a monumental achievement. That is, unless expectations have been carefully guided to view these results as a failure. "Why, Obama still is in the Presidency, and Pelosi is still in the House, Reid is likely to keep his Senate seat ('wouldn't it be better, for the good of the party, and for comity's sake and bipartisanship, for Angle to concede gracefully rather than put up a doomed fight which will turn the voters against us?'); we have not run the table on the Senate as the Democrats did to us in 2008, despite the most auspicious of circumstances; and we could have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling Tea-baggerspartiers."
Is this really true?
Let's look again at the races, and about recent history. We can look at the performances of the Establishment Republicans (say, in recent elections), and drill down a bit on this election.
In past elections, (say 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008) we had the following:
2002 -- a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Americans want security, dammit! The GOP gains 8 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
2004 -- Presidential Election; the first one after the "Sore Loserman" debacle in Florida in 2000, and the first one after 9-11.
The GOP picks up 3 seats in the House, the Donks lose 2.
The GOP picks up 4 Senate seats, the Donks lose 4.
Bush wins 31 states, but a mere 286 electoral votes, with a bare 50.7% of the popular vote.
2006 -- the Midterm elections for Bush's second term.
The Dems pick up the House, gaining 31 seats, while the GOP loses 30.
The Dems get the Senate, too, winning 6 seats.
This despite the presence of "The Architect" Karl Rove who brags about his detailed knowledge of the ground game.
But (as we will see) he learned his lesson, after a fashion.
2008 -- the annointing of Teh One.
Obama wins 365 electoral votes in 28 states + a single Congressional district in Nebraska. (Nebraska??!!)
The Donks extend their lead in the House, gaining 21 seats.
And in the Senate, they run the table, gaining 8 seats.
The election is marked by numerous unchallenged shenanigans, including voter fraud (voting by felons, votes found in car trunks) in Minnesota, and infamous re-counts in Washington State.
The only thing preventing a total rout is Sarah Palin, who is roundly condemned by the establishment, but targeted by the Dems, after being trashed by advisors lent by the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (as detailed later in Going Rogue).
So, let's look at the record of the Establishment GOP since the first election of George W. Bush (where the victory was so narrow that the Dems complained he was "selected, not elected." (And that, over Clinton's hand-picked successor.)
House: +8 +3 -30 -21 net --> -40
Senate: +2 +4 -6 -8 net --> -8
Heckuva job, Karl.
Compare that to the Tea Parties:
House: +65
Senate: +6
Cheers!
I would love to see Palin run for Senate in Alaska and kick Murkowski out.
Excellent!
Gov Sarah Palin 64.12% (2,018 votes)
Please explain.......................................
Don’t the polls say what they say, every time that Paul runs for president?
Isn’t the fundraising what it always is, every time that Paul runs for president?
Won’t the straw polls say what they always do, every time that Paul runs for president?
Isn’t Paul going to be a “factor”, every time that he runs for president?
Don’t Ron Paul’s people stay on board, every time that Paul runs for president?
Meet Ron Paul, a 40 year career politician, that has never been able to win statewide office, and who has been running for President of the United States for almost a quarter century, and who is now retiring at age 77.
We can start leaving him out of serious discussions of Presidential politics.
You will change your mind and you will see Palin become the next President.
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.