Palin 2012?

K4t

I know she's quite deluded and the media has created a load of hype around her etc and we all hope she'll never set foot inside of the White House.

But, do you think she will get the Republican nomination and run for Presidency in 2012?

Black Swan

K4t wrote: »

I know she's quite deluded

You have answered your own question?

K4t wrote: »

But, do you think she will get the Republican nomination and run for Presidency in 2012?

Obama-Biden would hope so, given how they won by a landslide victory in both the electoral college and popular vote with Palin on the opposing ticket. Palin would look ridiculous if she brought back Ayers and Wright, or whisper about Obama not being born in the US. And if the economy improves and America is out of Iraq, what will the Pit Bull will Lipstick attack? Certainly she would not address the issues... They are a bit too complex for Northern Exposure Palin.

is_that_so

She's not unelectable and made a tremendous impact on this one in so many ways. She'll be around for quite a while. Palin will "go back to school" and learn from what happened to her in this one. She has a formidable personal attraction in some parts of the US and add a little more cop-on, her own campaign control and some better media ability whoever comes up against her in the GOP ranks will have their work cut out for them. That said unless Obama makes a real mess of things he should get his eight years.

Hobbes

is_that_so wrote: »

She's not unelectable

HAHAHAHA....

Seriously though, I am sure she could get people to vote for her but she certainly isn't going to be the GOP. Not unless the GOP want to elect another democratic president.

Palin will "go back to school" and learn from what happened to her in this one.

What grade? Some things she needs to learn.
- Africa isn't a country.
- Montreal isn't in France.
- Name at least one newspaper she reads.
- That another country being close to you doesn't mean you have foreign policy experience.
- That if a president of another country says "They liked watching nailin palin" that they are probably a prank.
- Dinosaurs did not live around the same time as humans.

Biggins

Would love to see her picked for 2012.
That way, again Obama would be assured of winning!

The Republican will have rocks in the head to pick her.

wildsaffy

Hobbes - you are the funniest

lolol

She did not know where Russia was.

Now - for a governor of a state that is probably the closest .... um


Go figure.

Palin for 2012? If she lives that long.

Black Swan

Can Palin see 2012 from Alaska?

BenjAii

She has a huge popular appeal to large sections of conservative America; enough to see off plenty of other contenders in the 2011-12 Republican primaries.

But unless Obama has seriously screwed up, I can't see her going mainstream. It would be hard to see her being centrist enough to appeal to swing voters and with just the conservative base she would never win a national election; they're aren't enough of them.

Something tells me there are character flaws that could catch her out as well, she seems to have a very Bertie Ahern like relationship with the concept of telling the truth.

cabinteelytom

It seems Sarah Palin was a bit miffed that she didn't get to speak at the [very dignified] McCain concession rally; but he could hardly say, '..the failings were mine alone', and then hand the mike to Sarah, as a sight-gag.
(I'm asking myself; How difficult are the exams to become a Governor of Alaska?)

ilovemybrick

http://ispalinpresident.com/

Black Swan

cabinteelytom wrote: »

(I'm asking myself; How difficult are the exams to become a Governor of Alaska?)

Doubt that Sarah can see Leaving Cert from Alaska. Maybe she could get cheat cards from her neighbors the Ruskies (just like the cards she shuffled behind the podium during her debate with Biden?). Or how about the use of technology, like a teleprompter?

Jack Sheehan

I can see belgium from my arse.

nickpr53

I will be amazed beyond belief at American stupidity if they even nominate her. she is retarded. period. Check her out!
http://www.spinwhip.com/palin

CtrlSource

BenjAii wrote: »

She has a huge popular appeal to large sections of conservative America; enough to see off plenty of other contenders in the 2011-12 Republican primaries.

But unless Obama has seriously screwed up, I can't see her going mainstream. It would be hard to see her being centrist enough to appeal to swing voters and with just the conservative base she would never win a national election; they're aren't enough of them.

Something tells me there are character flaws that could catch her out as well, she seems to have a very Bertie Ahern like relationship with the concept of telling the truth.

+1

She's being lionised by Fox and the right wing media to such an extent that she may become a conservative pundit and maybe even host her own show? (she was a sports journalist on tv at one stage)

i agree with BenjAii though, she wont have mainstream support from even her
own party and is therefore unlikely to ever appeal to moderates and independents.

Also, her recent comments on the media attacking her made her look very bitter and angry and didn't do her any good. She needs to build a bridge! :P

nytraveller

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Obama-Biden would hope so, given how they won by a landslide victory in both the electoral college and popular vote.

Popular vote result : Obama 53% McCain 46%
I would not call that a landslide result.

CtrlSource

i would call it a landslide result for the Democrats. Obama won 8 million more votes, took back several States won by Bush in '04 and lost no Kerry States. They also gained 26 seats in Congress (6 Senate, 20 House of Representatives)!

Okay, it's not like the LBJ landslide of 1964 (which was very much a reaction to the murder of JFK the year before), or the huge victories won by Eisenhower in the '50s. But it's the biggest win in a US Election for 40 years

RichTea

The Republicans really shouldn't be looking to Palin in 2012. They could become like the Tories in England after New Labours win in 1997 and get lost in their conservatism by going for Palin. They would be in disarray in that event.

The only chance of a quick recovery for the GOP is to look towards the centre and try to capture a candidate of similar energy and motivational as Barack Obama. The chances of this are slim and it could be a term or two beyond 2016 by the time they recover.

jonny72

A mormon, a dumb celebrity girl, or an ex film star will be one of the GOP candidates for 2012.

Lets not kid ourselves, image and godliness appeal much more to the rednecks than experience, statesmanship and intelligence.

Dave147

She's still a milf though, looking forward to watching nalin palin later

eoinbn

RichTea wrote: »

The Republicans really shouldn't be looking to Palin in 2012. They could become like the Tories in England after New Labours win in 1997 and get lost in their conservatism by going for Palin. They would be in disarray in that event.

The only chance of a quick recovery for the GOP is to look towards the centre and try to capture a candidate of similar energy and motivational as Barack Obama. The chances of this are slim and it could be a term or two beyond 2016 by the time they recover.

That's pretty much it. It's interesting the way Fox news turned on her so quickly, by releasing the stories about her lack of knowledge. It seems clear to me that they and probably most sensible republicans(i.e more central) want her out of the picture. Even the way she is talking about 2012 is all wrong. Talking up the need of a woman in the white house isn't how to do it, Obama is the perfect example of that.

Trojan

http://www.therealright.com/blog/content/id_37924/title_5-Reasons-Sarah-Palin-Would-Lose-a-2012-Presidential-Bid/

Reason Number 1: Too Many Better Candidates
Reason Number 2: The Primary Process Has A Heavy Debate Emphasis
Reason Number 3: The GOP Favors Candidates Who’ve Sought the Presidency Before
Reason Number 4: Barack Obama Already Defeated Sarah Palin
Reason Number 5: Palin Has Enough Baggage

RichTea

Trojan wrote: »

http://www.therealright.com/blog/content/id_37924/title_5-Reasons-Sarah-Palin-Would-Lose-a-2012-Presidential-Bid/

Reason Number 1: Too Many Better Candidates
Reason Number 2: The Primary Process Has A Heavy Debate Emphasis
Reason Number 3: The GOP Favors Candidates Who’ve Sought the Presidency Before
Reason Number 4: Barack Obama Already Defeated Sarah Palin
Reason Number 5: Palin Has Enough Baggage

All good reasons and all reasons that will not be considered by the Palinstinians. Mitt Romney would probably be the most likely GOP candidate for next time round at the moment.

banquo

I'd love to see Charlie Crist run, he'd get my vote (if only that were possible).

Won't happen though, for obvious reasons. We'll see Romney again though, slimeball though he is. Palin will havehte advantage of

a) Being a chick, and can say 'Don't you dare patronise me mister', and
b) Having 4 years to practise

She'd kill Romney in Iowa and the early primaries where it's all town hall, but he'd kick her ass with his millions coming up to super tuesday and after.

I get the impression that Romney wants it bad.

Galvasean

Considering large chunks of the Republican party place the blame on Palin for losing this election so badly I doubt they'd be in a hurry to nominate her.

InReality

Unlike most of my friends and other replies here I think she could be the nominee and could be a good threat to obama in 2012.
I'm not sure about the middle 5-6% supporting her , but if the economy is ok by 2012 , and the reps start throwing dirt about , she might have a chance.
I find she has a certain charm , bit like reagan , bit like bertie , in that she doesn't try to be consistent in what she says or say anything serious apart from nice phrases and soundbites.

Black Swan

InReality wrote: »

but if the economy is ok by 2012

Obama will be reelected. If the economy is in the dumpster, then he will be replaced. Goes with the famous expression that most forgot when they thought the Republicans had a chance winning the White House this year..."It's the economy stupid!" As for Palin, I hope she stays in the press between now and then for a good laugh. Obama is too stiff and serious for SNL or Jay Leno material.

Melange

CtrlSource wrote: »

i would call it a landslide result for the Democrats. Obama won 8 million more votes, took back several States won by Bush in '04 and lost no Kerry States. They also gained 26 seats in Congress (6 Senate, 20 House of Representatives)!

Okay, it's not like the LBJ landslide of 1964 (which was very much a reaction to the murder of JFK the year before), or the huge victories won by Eisenhower in the '50s. But it's the biggest win in a US Election for 40 years

I hate to be a pedant, but Nixon and Reagan won in 1972 and 1984 by greater margins than LBJ in 1964.

Regarding Palin, I don't think she has a credible chance in 2012. The GOP will undergo a long period of soul-searching, and will most likely come to the conclusion that concentrating on so-called "values voters" (those obsessed with God, Guns and Gays) has reduced the Republicans to a rural and regional party, a party that speaks for a shrinking minority of Americans. The atmosphere in the Republican party in 2012 will not exactly be conducive to a Palin run.

Crash

Melange wrote: »

I hate to be a pedant, but Nixon and Reagan won in 1972 and 1984 by greater margins than LBJ in 1964.

I think the full quote is actually that its the largest margin of victory for a first term president since LBJ in 64 - seeing as 72 and 84 were both second term victories.

speedboatchase

Bobby Jindal or Romney I'd say, Palin hasnt a sniff

RedPlanet

Naw, we won't see the same players again.
If they failed to win the Republican nomination, and are not media celebrities thereafter, it's the dustbin of history for them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Republican's Faustian pact with US fundamentalist Christianity means that's a non-starter.

America is a two party state, and a Republican Party that snubs the Christian fundamentalists hasn't got a hope.

So as wacky and weird as it looks to a large proportion of America (to say nothing of the rest of the world) it will have to pander to their agenda to have any chance.

Palin has a real gift for communication, in the mold of Ronald Reagan, however she seems to have a strongly mendacious streak that I suspect will be her undoing, her inability to reach beyond the Christian core notwithstanding.

oscarBravo

BenjAii wrote: »

Palin has a real gift for communication...

Did you even see the Katie Couric interviews?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure how much preparation you need to answer the question "what papers do you read?"

I don't think Palin is dumb; and if she does continue on that national stage, I think we can expect her to become a lot more savvy in how she handles herself.

I wouldn't describe her as dumb, but to say she has a gift for communication is hysterically wide of the mark. Apart from when she's delivering prepared lines, she can't seem to assemble a coherent sentence.

Leaving Couric aside, did you see the toe-curling interview at her home with Greta Van Susteren? Again, rambling and incoherent throughout. She's many things, but a gifted communicator she ain't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not only did she fall on her face during the Couric and Susteren interviews, but did likewise during the Charlie Gibson interview.

I also remember seeing a side shot of her with flash cards behind the podium during the vice presidential debate, flipping through them trying to come up with some of the prepared answers. This was no high school debate or beauty queen contest where they ask you questions and you issue prepared answers. All that winking at the cameras might have worked then, but not for the Office of the Vice President of the United States. Terribly amateurish of Northern Exposure Palin.

Had she been elected, I'm sure Putin (or some other world leader) is not always going to let her see the questions in advance before he "drill baby drills" her on the public forum. And Joe the Plumber or Six-pack language will hardly gain respect on the world diplomatic stage. She was not only the laughing stock of Jay Leno, but also the world community.

I truly will miss the Palin gaffs, along with her $150,000 shopping spree in posh stores that do not exist in the State of Alaska, especially when she spent half of it ($75,000) on one day in Neiman Marcus. There's an accomplishment indeed! Neiman Marcus opens at 11.00AM and closes at 10.00PM. Now, if she spent the entire day there (which, of course we assume she didn't), she would have 11 hours to shop, try on clothes and accessories, have tailors fit and mark her up, running from department to department, without food or a potty break, and would have had to spend $6,818.18 USD per hour! Wow! I'm impressed! I bet Joe the Plumber would have been too! You betcha!

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why should that matter? "Jeez Katie, I don't read papers, I get my news from the internet. But you didn't ask me specifically about the internet and there's clearly no room for manoeuvre in such an important question....em, all of 'em."

I do agree that Palin has a flair for delivering a prepared speech, and I think she could come across more articulately and coherently had she time to inform herself and do more interview prep. But she was an unknown, untested entity hurled into the media spotlight at the end of August, and campaign postmortems show that the chaos that ensued was not entirely Palin's fault. Having said that, I think McCain should have gone with his instincts and chosen Joe Lieberman.

This sort of excuse doesn't fly, she was campaigning for US VP, not county councillor in Leitrim. There was a massive team behind McCain to make the campaign work as well as possible, to suggest she wasn't getting interview prep, daily briefs, practise, whatever was necessary is just short-sightedness, which implies that the McCain campaign was not run well; cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Palin does have the unfortunate tendency to babble when she becomes nervous, and yes, she was rambling and incoherent. But I see this as a sign of a nervous neophyte, not necessarily of a terminal halfwit, which is how the media chose to represent her.

Shouldn't she be able to think on her feet? If she babbles that badly at an inoffensive question from Couric and have to be saved by Big Daddy McCain in a later interview, passing off her inadequacies on "left leaning journalists" and "gotcha moments" then what hope is there for the future? What hope is there if she had to face a real crisis? She'd be like a headless turkey.

P.S. I wonder how long before Palin is investigated for fraud/larceny/funding misappropriation? There seem to be more and more stories about this, not just from the campaign but issues in Alaska such as setting up an secure email service.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella...
I cannot speak for Brian, but I am very "relaxed" on this sunny afternoon in Southern California, listening to some tunes and sipping a grand cup of java in one of my favourite coffeehouses. I would hope in your response to this thread that you too were "relaxed?"

I was merely answering the topic of this thread based upon the only thing we have to judge her future elective performance upon: her past performance. Not some speculative notion that she may go through a profound change, a metamorphosis, per se, and transform from a weird Northern Exposure caterpillar into an attractive and electable butterfly in 4 years.

This metaphor I feel appropriate in terms of what I have seen of the US presidential election process. All show and no substance! Whomever stages the best show wins at the box office and gets the Oscar!

BenjAii

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure how much preparation you need to answer the question "what papers do you read?" I wouldn't describe her as dumb, but to say she has a gift for communication is hysterically wide of the mark. Apart from when she's delivering prepared lines, she can't seem to assemble a coherent sentence.

Leaving Couric aside, did you see the toe-curling interview at her home with Greta Van Susteren? Again, rambling and incoherent throughout. She's many things, but a gifted communicator she ain't.

I would disagree. Her talent is to directly connect with a certain section of the American electorate in a way few very politicians ever succeed in doing.

The fact it was her the crowds turned out for and not McCain illustrates that.
To these people her embarrassing interview gaffes will be turned into a badge of strength, in fact such is the strength of anti-intellectualism amongst this segment of the electorate, it will make them like her more.

For all her faults, you have to acknowledge her ability to speak for a large number of American conservatives and her connection to them, is a rare gift in a politician.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

BenjAii wrote: »

I would disagree. Her talent is to directly connect with a certain section of the American electorate in a way few very politicians ever succeed in doing.

The fact it was her the crowds turned out for and not McCain illustrates that.
To these people her embarrassing interview gaffes will be turned into a badge of strength, in fact such is the strength of anti-intellectualism amongst this segment of the electorate, it will make them like her more.

Yes, but it also serves to drive off any Republican with an ounce of sense, disgust swing voters, and remove (by fear) any thoughts Democrats might have about their own candidate and jumping ship. The kind of bile that was coming out of that campaign was not healthy, IMO.

BenjAii

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, but it also serves to drive off any Republican with an ounce of sense, disgust swing voters, and remove (by fear) any thoughts Democrats might have about their own candidate and jumping ship. The kind of bile that was coming out of that campaign was not healthy, IMO.

You're right, but that is the Faustian pact I was referring to earlier.

As the US is a 2 party state, the Republicans must have all types of conservatives in their tent if they are to win. So as much as moderate, or independent swing voters may abhor the Christian fundamentalists and the vulgar populism espoused by the shock jocks and Fox, the Republican party can't do without those votes.

The difference was that before candidates just played to these segments of the electorates, but were not themselves from it. Now with the likes of Palin & even Huckabee that has changed.

It's very hard to see any Republican candidate representing that sort of conservatism being palatable outside that section of the electorate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My point is that you have absolutely nothing to refer to if not the candidate's prior performance, if you want to assess their future potential, all else is pure speculation. You criticized me referring to Sarah Palin's campaign in an earlier post, as if it was time to sweep it under the carpet and forget it? What else would you refer to when attempting an educated guess as to her 2012 presidential office prospects? Astrology? Reading tea leaves or crystal balls? From a rational standpoint, we only have the history of her past to estimate her future (excluding Deus ex machina).

If we go back further into the histories of the two mentioned in your post for comparison purposes, Palin and Obama, there are both similarities and significant differences.

• They are similar in that they were both rather publicly obscure before this election.
• They both rose from relatively humble beginnings.

But there are significant differences in their histories, too.

• Palin shifted from college to college, never distinguishing herself like Obama during those formative years.
• Obama during interviews has exhibited his brightness and understanding of many complex issues, while Palin has been mediocre at best, often stumbling over simple questions like "What papers do you read?"
• While the Republican campaign tried to limit Obama's public service to the last 4 years in the US Senate (which you mentioned), they continue to belittle his 8 years as a State of Illinois Senator, pointing to when he voted present (which was only 3% of the time out of roughly 4000 votes by him). In comparison, Palin was Alaska's governor for only 2 years, Oil & Gas Commissioner for one (which she quit), and mayor 1996-2002 (of the extraordinarily small town of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,469 in the 2000 US Census).
• Illinois politics are certainly more attuned to what goes on in the nation than the issues of a very isolated State of Alaska, allowing for Obama to gain an appreciation of the issues facing the nation, than Palin, who now returns to her obscure state.
• Obama and Biden worked well together during the presidential campaign from start to finish, while infighting between the McCain and Palin camps became evident in the last weeks before the election.

This list of differences could go on, but the point is that Palin exhibited a lot of drive, but average intelligence and inadequate knowledge for an office that demanded both drive, superior intelligence and knowledge to solve complex national and international problems. While she may improve her knowledge base, if motivated to do so, I doubt that she would ever be any brighter than "C" average Yale student GW Bush, who has left the country in an economic mess, warming the seat in the Oval Office for 2 terms playing war games, and pointing back to the Clinton administration as if Bush had no responsibility during the past 8 years to anticipate or mitigate the current economic meltdown in the US.

In some ways the Palin Wasilla era is similar to GW Bush national era, if we look how she left her 2 terms as mayor of tiny Wasilla in debt ($20 million), and GW Bush almost doubling the federal deficit of the Big US (from $5.7 trillion at the end of Clinton to what is approaching $11 trillion by 20 January 2009).

I had always heard that the Republicans had fiscal responsibility as a plank in their past political platforms, and they always criticized the Democrats for "spend, spend, spend," but Wasilla Mayor Palin and GW Bush have demonstrated just the opposite in action by leaving their 2 term offices in greater debt than when they assumed them. Now that's history, not speculation, and the only thing of substance we can refer to when attempting to assess Palin's bid for 2012.

Manic Moran

They are similar in that they were both rather publicly obscure before this election

More so Palin, though people had been rumouring about her as a possible person to keep an eye on over a year ago.

Obama, on the other hand, was anything but obscure before this election. He may not have received much press on the Irish side of the Atlantic, but you can go back to his initial US Senate runs to find talk of Presidential aspiration. Some quick cartoon examples.

October 2006, over two years ago.


August 2004, before even the Bush/Kerry election, and before he became a US Senator


NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really, he garnered more votes than George Bush did, the election was called by the Supreme Court.

1790, the population of the entire United States was only 3.8 million? That only 11 towns and cities in the nation had a population larger than today's Wasilla? Or that the country's largest cities of New York and Philadelphia were approximately the same size as today's Drogheda and Dundalk? Did this make George Washington any less of a president?

Do you really think it's appropriate to compare 1790 with 2008?
That is ridiculous. George Washington's legacy was made during the Revolutionary War, his presidency was a bit of a disaster.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely if Gore won the popular vote in Florida he would've gotten the Electoral college and thus the election? Come on its been eight years, admit that the election was stolen!