Friday, November 12, 2010
Right Wing News is out with its regular poll of conservative bloggers (which, unaccountably, does not include me, probably because I'm soft on certain issues), this time to measure their reaction to the results of the 2010 elections. It is worth looking at, in part for two interesting results.
First, they love Sarah Palin, or at least credit her with having a big impact (emphasis in the original).
1) Out of the following people and groups, which do you think was the most valuable player in the election cycle?
Jim DeMint: 10.6% (7 votes)
The NRCC: 16.7% (11 votes)
The NRSC: 0.0% (0 votes)
Sarah Palin: 62.1% (41 votes)
The RGA: 9.1% (6 votes)
The RNC: 1.5% (1 vote)
Second, they overwhelmingly believe the results were more an indictment of Democrats than a vote for Republicans (and I agree):
5) Which of the following would you say is a more apt description of the Democrats' historic election losses?
A) People voted against the Democrats: 92.6% (63 votes)
B) People voted for the Republicans: 2.9% (2 votes)
C) It was more about the economy, racism, a tantrum, people wanting change, or other factors than either party: 4.4% (3 votes)
One might easily read these results together to suggest that Governor Palin is more effective attacking Democrats than she is articulating the merits of the GOP. That, I think, would be a fair assessment of her. So far.
The Republican nomination is Sarah's, if she wants it. She's already acting like she'll be running. The first four primaries are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Sarah can sweep all four, in which case it's over early.
Iowa caucus Feb 6
As it's the first race, there's likely to be more than one mid-western white-bread governor in the running -- along with Romney -- which will serve to split the anti-Sarah vote. They should want Huckabee in the race to peel off some of the Holy Roller vote. I say Sarah wins with at least 35% of the vote. Lots of posters here are from Iowa -- am I wrong?
New Hampshire primary Feb 14
Romney has a shot in New Hampshire, but if he doesn't win there he's an early exit (he'll do the ROI analysis and quit). Romney lost here in 2008 to McCain, as independents can vote in the Republican primary. Ironically, Romney can win here in 2012 if he can harvest an anti-Sarah movement among independents.
Nevada caucus Feb 18
Sarah already runs the party here, doesn't she?
South Carolina primary Feb 28
Nothing but Gun Nuts and Holy Rollers in the Palmetto state, so Sarah rules. She'll get an absolute majority, if the field is thin. She may even clear 60%.
February 2012 is only 14 months away. The only way to stop the Sarah Express is for one other candidate to break from the pack early as the anti-Sarah alternative, as Obama did to Hillary in 2008. I don't see any Republican yet who can do this. Romney is electorally challenged, which I've ranted about here before.
Sarah's beatable in a general, even by a wounded Obama, or by Hillary, as Sarah has high negatives in many key demographics. That said she's already got a great media operation working -- she leads news all the time.
Sarah needs a Come to Jesus with independents else if she wins the Presidency Sarah will likely only be a "plurality winner", not a "majority winner", which will make it difficult for her to govern.
Is Sarah closer to Christine O'Donnell than to Newt Gingrich? I still don't know.
I don't agree the nomination will be won by Palin, and it certainly is not "hers". Don't forget there is still considerable time and a campaign before the nominee is figured out.
Among individuals, she was the MVP personality of the last cycle, and ubiquitous too, in contrast to any other national GOP personality. But the true MVP was obviously the Tea Party- it was that loose collection of average citizens who roused up the mass of voters. Without the Tea Party groups I don't think we would have accomplished anywhere near the shellacking of the Democrats that President Obama acknowledged, even if Pelosi won't admit it.
Looking ahead, the stars or the goats of the next eighteen months will be the Congressional Republicans. If Boehner et al give us a reason to vote Republican in 2012, something voters evidently did not do in this last election, then the GOP will win big.
It's there for the taking: if the House Republicans are timid, they fail. If they are willing to live up to their supporters best hopes, in my opinion, they will win big.
It was McCain that was the lousy candidate. Palin is fine but I'm not sure I'd vote for her in a primary and I'm not sure she could beat the Kenyan and his thug organizations.
What I don't understand is the pathological hatred of Palin that so many of our ultra-left wing numb-nuts have. Why do they hate her so much and how can we use their irrationality to take back our culture?
"the nomination certainly is not 'Palin's'"
Game theory says that Palin starts with a big advantage going for the nomination, then has difficulty in the general.
Sarah could out-finance the entire rest of the field through the early primaries.
A crowded field helps her in the primaries, except for Huckabee. If you want to stop Sarah, settle on the one best other candidate and do it fast. I don't think that's Romney -- but if not Romney, then who? Else she'll roll through the early primaries.
"the true MVP was obviously the Tea Party"
Agreed, but what's the Tea Party? To me, it's the big swing in Independents matched with higher Republican energy. It wasn't the Tea Party Express candidates Miller, Angle and O'Donnell that Palin backed.
Of course, a lot can happen in a year: e.g., Sarah could have another two-headed love child.
Politics can be viewed at least two ways: as a competitive event or sport for the entertainment factor, or as an element of statesmanship and serious policy deployment.
Sarah Palin is the country's brightest superstar in the first point of view. There are many others who outshine her in the second point of view.
The question is, how will the GOP nominating process and the American people proceed? Will they be fixated on the excitement factor of a popular entertainment vehicle, or will they think we are in such deep difficulties as a nation that we need to seek out a leader and statesman (in the gender-agnostic sense, of course).
Well one thing is clear, we all expect serious cuts in spending. Pajamas media, via Insty, has a really good tool for experimenting with the impact of spending cuts in some broad areas on the deficit. I think it's clear that no real solution is possible without serious reform of Medicare. Paging Paul Ryan!
Well, if the first question wasn't written so heavily by the fashion - which is completely tunnelvision blinded - it would be different.
For example, if it included a vast number of Conservative voices, from the Radio, as well as other GOP Members, such as Chrisite, Barbor, etc. - it wouldn't be so overt.
But that is the fashionable blind folly we see today in Conservative Circles. Not only does this suggest a very misguided emotive quality amongst Conservative Bloggers - the entire question is foolishly framed to only focus on a tiny select vision of Palin, Demint, etc., to try to show a diminished Republican establishment.
It is utter nonsense. In fact, few Conservative Bloggesrs even seem to realize Romney had traveled far greater than Palin, visitng far more candidates. But it doesn't matter to fashion, hype, celebrity. It isn't conservatism.
It is a riot to read Hot Air sometimes, as Allahpundit is such a player on the fashion, and the Palin Franchise.
But the Palins just lost dramatically in Alaska, growing more enemies and opposition in the ugly Murkowski - Miller effort. I remember those emails, and they weren't pretty.
In fact, it is really amusing, to see this Woman who is a leader of the less than impressive Tea Party Express tell us Romney is not acceptable in their opinion. No doubt, he hurt himself with the Healthcare Reform in MA, but he might be the best CEO offering we have - the best for the job.
No one would be foolish to cross anyone off the list yet, and by the looks of things, the TEA PARTY EXPRESS has exhibited a major obsession over LOSERS in those Midterms. The Delaware - Alaska - Nevada flops were embarrassing, and could have been avoided with far more sound offerings.
There are those who still want to push the Sarah Palin Celebrity, and the fashion on the good side, but it was revealed again to be rather weak in the Midterms.They offered some truly poor politics, vilifying the percieved 'establishment', foolishly growing opposition, creating predictable 'backlash' opportunties.
And to be totally honest, I grow more and more weary of the fashionable echo game on the good side. The more ALLAH pushes the Palin Celebrity, the more I tend to feel like turning away from the overt - weak Identity game.
Right now, Sarah Palin running for President, would be nearly as weak an offering as an O'Donnell in Delaware.
We cannot give the Democrats that kind of help anymore.
Rasmussen Poll on Palin
Just saw this. It supports what I was saying.
Sarah's "unfavorable" rating has been going up, now at 52%. Her "favorable" has been slipping, now at 40%. The drop has been with Independents, where she's now at only 35% "favorable". She's been climbing with Republicans, now at 80% "favorable".
If the poll included "highly favorable" / "highly unfavorable", I'd bet it'd be even more striking. Love her or hate her, but Sarah's beloved within the Republican party.
McCain will likely support Sarah in the 2010 New Hampshire primary -- he hates Romney and still has clout in the Granite State. So don't expect Romney to carry New Hampshire as a pseudo-native son, no matter how much his kids jet ski in Lake Winnipesaukee.
For Romney to challenge Sarah, he needs to beat her in Iowa. Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 with 34% -- were he to run again he'd peel the Holy Roller vote away from Sarah.
There should be better challengers to Sarah than Romney, but a crowded field helps Sarah as she has a sizeable loyal die-hard base.
If she runs, Sarah will generate even more media heat than she has before. It'll get even more bizarre.
E.g., Sarah will turn 48 as the primaries start. We'd get into questions about menopause and the rhythm method in the context of the 25th Amendment. Do you have any doubt?
Meanwhile... today's Washington Post has a Holy Shit Headline:
One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
It's an op-ed by "outsiders", but it's a start. Suck on that, Ezra Klein.
Must have got lost When The J Geils Band ever get into the R&R Hall of Fame?
This will be a clear test of whether the Republican Party can be taken seriously. They have real talent available, Christie and Daniels most obviously.
But if Republicans nominate someone who quit half way through her gubernatorial term to go on Fox and get her own reality show, it'll show the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I can't believe there are people on this site defend her. Who are you kidding, other than yourself?
And by the way, you can thank yourself if you then get two terms of Obama.
"We cannot give the Democrats that kind of help anymore."
There is no "we" in either the GOP or the DNC. There are disparate groups with very different preferences regarding outcomes.
Frankly, the base of the GOP is taking control. Unfortunately they are also dying at an alarming rate.
That's sad to a moderate such as myself who actually prefers a two party system.
Push for the Wassila Wingnut. I've not voted for a Republican since Reagan/Bush and can happily continue to do so.
Way too soon to speculate about what anyone will think about Sarah Palin in another six months, much less two years from now.
A huge factor, in my opinion, will be her new show on Discovery.
Will it humanize her family by removing the media filter, or will it turn them into reality freaks like the Osbournes or the Jersey Shore cast?
It could be a brilliant move on her part -- but it could also completely remove her from the Presidential race, at least in '12.
I live in one of the four counties that surrounds Philadelphia, and it's those four counties than can tip the balance in Pennsylvania in 2012 should President Obama get a large turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. These are, by and large, centrist counties. They are pro-choice, against "don't ask don't tell," against prayer in the schools (by and large), want less and responsible government, want good leadership and a strong (if cost-effective) national defense (many, for example, would resonate with the bi-partisan commission's recent findings on how to reduce the deficit). They have vacillated between parties not because they temporarily like one party more than the other, but, more likely, because they are rejecting a party in power and, at the moment, like the party in power less than the party for whom they're voting. They like candidates who are well-versed on the issues, who are thoughtful and who offer more hope than the other candidate. They split tickets, and many, right now, don't like much about either political party.
I suppose this is my roundabout way of saying that if Sarah Palin is the nominee for the Republicans, she will lose Pennsylvania, and fairly handily (by 55-45%). The suburbanites won't go for someone who is that far to the right in the Presidential election (yes, they went for Pat Toomey for Senate, but just barely, and primarly because it was a big Republican year). Sarah Palin can prepare better than she did in 2008, but the baggage from 2008 remains, and the Republicans would be better served to nominate a Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie.
William F. Buckley once said that Republicans should vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected in the general election. Republicans in Delaware learned that lesson the hard way by nominating Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in their Senatorial primary. Castle would have defeated Chris Coons handily; Coons defeated O'Donnell handily.
The same could happen in 2012, where a charismatic if weakened incumbent could defeat the Republican challenger, if only because the Republicans picked an unelectable choice in their primary season. And Republicans should also remember well that after the Newt Gingrich-led insurgency in 1994, Bill Clinton -- a weakened Bill Clinton -- was reelected in 1996.
The Republicans have a golden opportunity in 2012, but they should learn from 1994-1996 as well as recent history, and pick the most electable conservative out there.
And that's not Sarah Palin.
I'm not optimistic if Palin's popularity will last long. I think everyone goes through a cycle of being popular and being unpopular. During the poll, Palin is indeed popular but who knows what will happen in the future.