Palin’s Prospects
Brendan Nyhan writes:
It’s amusing to me that people think Sarah Palin is going to run for president in 2012 if McCain loses. Her favorable/unfavorable numbers in the new CBS/NYT poll are 32 percent favorable/41 percent unfavorable. That’s where Hillary Clinton and Al Gore were in early 2007 after 15+ years of negative press. By contrast, Palin has been in the public eye for less than two months. I find it hard to believe that GOP primary voters would see her as the person they think can defeat Barack Obama.
Maybe so. It’s striking to me, though, that explicit “electability” arguments don’t seem to feature heavily in GOP presidential primaries. This is a huge contrast from the Democratic side, where both the 2004 and 2008 primaries ended up showing a heavy focus on those questions. All signs are that a lot of conservatives like Palin just fine. If she can connect with a donor base, it seems to me that she’d be a reasonably strong primary contender. She’d have the leg up, meanwhile, of being better-known nationwide at this point than just about any other eligible Republican.
102 Responses to “Palin’s Prospects”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Electability might not be AS important, but it needs to have some cache. And I don’t think people realize how unpopular she is with suburban women (at least in this swing state).
October 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Not only is she the favorite in ‘12 for the nomination, but if the economy is still weak, she’ll win the general.
Contrary to the lefty CW at the moment, she’s not stupid. Three years will give her enough time to be able to handle Meet the Press, and her inability to do that is her only major sticking point at the moment.
—–
Not so tangentially, if you have any legislation you want passed, get it passed between January ‘09 and October ‘10. That’s the window for getting lefty stuff made into law.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I think her chances for the nomination if she decides she wants it are quite strong. The crazies who vote in the primaries love her, and there’s going to be a lot of “If only the ticket had been flipped!” handwringing going on after this election in conservative circles. Heck, I’ll re-register as an independent so I can vote in the Republican primary if she runs.
Because President Obama will chew her up and spit her out in a general election.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Matt,
Tell me you didn’t just write, “she’d have a leg up?” Wait until the freepers read this and accuse you of such blatant sexism.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
If this primary has taught us one thing, it’s that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be mayor of a small town, let alone…
Pace Petey, I’d expect some shift in the GOP after this one.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Unless the GOP establishes some kind of modern, netroots or equivalent type fundraising strategy, I don’t see Palin connecting with the donor base. Sure, the Limbaugh crowd and Cleetus set like her just fine, but the business types are golding their noses.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Holding their noses. Holding. Stupid iPhone keyboard…
October 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Unless the GOP establishes some kind of modern, netroots or equivalent type fundraising strategy, I don’t see Palin connecting with the donor base. Sure, the Limbaugh crowd and Cleetus set like her just fine, but the business types are golding their noses.”
Palin already has the Huckabee votes locked up. She will spend the next three years working on getting the grudging acceptance of the David Brookses of the world, at which point she will have as wide an appeal to the party as Bush did in ‘00.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
“I’d expect some shift in the GOP after this one.”
They’re going to immediately shift to the right in the wake of the coming debacle for them, and after they make their inevitable gains in 2010, the shift to the right will seem to them to be responsible for the gains.
Hence Palin in ‘12 will make much more sense to them than Pawlenty or such.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Heres the thing: I’m not sure republicans elect a woman in a primary. Its one thing to say that they accept her and rally around her when shes chosen by somebody else, but I don’t think that republican primary voters actually have it in them to vote for her in large enough numbers versus a Huckabee or Romney.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Matt,
I think it’s hard for you to imagine the GOP taking Palin seriously in 2012 because you are assuming they are honest and rational about this stuff. They aren’t. They like to find charismatic phonies with charming accents who will act as loyal puppets to the Cheneys lurking behind the curtain. That’s why Ari Fleischer was on “The Daily Show” last night talking about how much he, a conservative, really likes Palin. They’re already giving up on McCain (whom they never liked) and looking forward to the Palin Project.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yep I’m sure the Republicans are going to rally around a member of the ticket that had the worst Republican showing in 50 years. I mean look how Jack Kemp was given the 2000 nomination!
October 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I’m not so sure Republicans don’t think about electability–I think that McCain was a pure electability pick for them. The base certainly wasn’t excited about him. But they ended up going with him because they remember the rosy glow McCain gave off in 2000 and figured he was their best bet to overcome the last eight years of disaster.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Petey:
You still hold the same opinion if McCain loses like Jimmy Carter did to Ray-gun? I doubt she’ll be the nominee in four years. Eight, maybe. If she is as smart politically as they say, why would she run against an incumbent Obama? She’d only do that if the economy is just as bad as it is today. Besides, if the economy hasn’t improved. I’d expect civil war in the Republican Party. The Money men versus the Fundies. Heck, it might happen soon after this election. We’ll see.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Prediction: after losing her campaign to be reelected Governor of Alaska, Palin will go on to host a Nancy Grace-type talk show on Fox News. Such a gig is exactly what she is cut out for. And very little else.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
You folks seem to think that the evangelical conservatives who love Palin actually call the shots in the Republican Party. They do not, and never have. They are useful idiots, period. The money that runs the GOP will not support Palin.
Besides, no one likes a loser. The only losing VP nominee I can think of to come back in the next election as the Presidential nominee was Mondale, and look how well that turned out.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I don’t think the base will attach any blame to Palin for the ticket’s failure. What isn’t blamed on those communist negros at ACORN will be laid at the feet of McCain, who the base never liked much anyway. They’ll see Palin as an innocent bystander, and the narrative will be that if McCain had just allowed her to be herself and come out and talk on her own, he would have won.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Naw.. they can have their outsider and a decent human being with character and integrity and ideas. Not a mean-spirited empty suit like Palin.
Think Bobby Jindal. He was smart enough to stay of the sinking ship this time around, and he’ll be back.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“If she is as smart politically as they say, why would she run against an incumbent Obama? She’d only do that if the economy is just as bad as it is today.”
It can be hard to game these things given the long time distance between announcing and the election. In 1991, Bush the Elder looked unbeatable, and lots of Dems decided not to run just before the economy went blooey and Bush the Elder became unelectable.
Economic performance in the 6 months before the election is the strongest “objective reality” in determining an incumbent’s fate, so sometimes you just have to make a decision to run 18 months out and just hope for the worst for the economy.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I think Sarah has a lot of competition lining up; Newt Gingrich is relishing the task of rebuilding a disgraced party his way…. since he’s unelectable himself, will he employ Palin as his candidate?
October 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Palin already has the Huckabee votes locked up.
The Huckabee set traditionally brings boots to the polls, not dollars to the party. If she’s going to win over the suburbs, she’s going to risk alienating her natural base. You may be right, but I wouldn’t want to be a GOP strategist these days or in the foreseeable future. The coalition has cracked. Should McCain lose, the finger pointing after will crack it more.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Now that Petey thinks Palin in 2012 is inevitable we can all rest assured it will never happen.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Think Bobby Jindal. He was smart enough to stay of the sinking ship this time around, and he’ll be back.”
He’d still be awfully young in ‘12.
Odds are that he’ll end up on the GOP national ticket at some point, but I think he might have to wait another cycle…
October 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
It seems like the national GOP is going the same way as the New Jersey GOP. Basically, very popular with centrist (by current standards liberal) candidates in the 80s and 90s (Kean, Whitman), but their primaries are run by the religious right now. This might work in Kansas, but the religious right in NJ is a serious minority. So, no matter what flawed candidate the Democrats throw up (Lautenberg in like 110 years old), they can’t lose to the far right candidate the NJ GOP picks in their primaries.
If the Democrats control Congress and Obama wins, and they don’t confiscate every gun in America on Jan. 21, 2009, the GOP with be a 20-30% party nationally. Yes, that party will nominate Palin in 2012, but she will get smoked.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Other than Jindal, who’s on the bench? McCain won the nomination this time by default, which shows how weak GOP prospects are.
Not to say that Palin would do well in the 2012 primaries. Being the wingnut candidate of choice didn’t do much for Sam Brownback this time around.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
> Palin already has the Huckabee votes
> locked up.
You assume that Huckabee won’t be running again in 2012/2016 and if he does won’t get support. I would not make either of those assumptions. And re Glenn’s 9:47: not sure I agree with that, particularly given the trajectory of McCain’s campaign and VP selection.
Does anyone else find it amusing that “Petey” continues to give us the benefit of his incredibly sage advice? I wish he would go into stock picking; I could make a fortune doing the exact opposite of what he recommends. And like a Weeble(tm) he never lets being knocked down discourage him!
October 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Does anyone really believe that the Republican Party will still be relevant to politics in four years. The Republican candidate for President in four years will have as much chance of winning as the token Republican candidates who are always running for the seats held by the CBC.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“Should McCain lose, the finger pointing after will crack it more.”
McCain is obviously going to lose, but the finger pointing shouldn’t be that bad. They all hate McCain and what he represents in the Party, so they’ll just blame it on McCain’s aisle-crossing ways and move to the right.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I don’t get Brendan’s favorable/unfavorable argument. Is it a rule of politics that politicians inexorably become more disliked over time? Hillary and Gore are disliked (unfortunately) for reasons that seem to have a lot to do with their being Hillary and Gore.
Palin has been a disastrous pick for McCain, but it really wasn’t obvious that it was going to turn out that way. The problem really is that she’s not very talented, and it shows. The question is whether four or eight years of training will be enough for her to overcome her deficits. I suspect not, but we’ll see.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
It’s striking to me, though, that explicit “electability” arguments don’t seem to feature heavily in GOP presidential primaries.
I seem to recall some discussion about W’s electability in 2000 as a contrast to the GOP’s crash and burn in ‘96 with Dole. Perhaps a few years in the wilderness will clear their thinking a bit. Not betting on it though.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I think Quincy nails it–much more of this will come down to what happens in Alaska politics locally, and what he’s saying feels like her natural path more than any other.
I keep comparing her to Huckabee, who is doing a really great job of keeping himself relevant, and who has already started his 2012 primary campaign. I think he’s clever enough to make peace with the business interests, and I think he’ll emerge as a force to be reckoned with.
That said, it’s ridiculous to forecast out 4 years from now. I mean, Bobby Jindal is going to have a potent resume–or he’s gonna get caught up in some Louisiana sleaze that may or may not actually be his fault. Or any one of these people could be hit by a meteor. Or Texas could. Just too many variables.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Does anyone really believe that the Republican Party will still be relevant to politics in four years.”
Buy stock in the GOP on November 5th.
They’re close to being guaranteed of having very good results in the 2010 elections, and if the economy is still weak, will be very capable of winning the WH in 2012.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Palin already has the Huckabee votes locked up.
Um… why doesn’t Huckabee have the Huckabee votes locked up?
She’d have the leg up, meanwhile, of being better-known nationwide at this point than just about any other eligible Republican.
I don’t know. Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and Jeb Bush all have at least comparable levels of name recognition. Being a losing veep candidate didn’t do all that much for John Edwards’ chances this year.
My guess is she sits 2012 out, focuses on building her record in Alaska, and makes a run in 2016 or 2020.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Three more years will make her far better versed on the international questions that have so strongly disqualified her this time around. And I think she’ll lose the winky winky crap, too. I think she’s not out at all.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
“You assume that Huckabee won’t be running again in 2012/2016 and if he does won’t get support.”
I do assume he won’t be running again, but have a low degree of confidence in that assumption.
I think he wants to get rich more than he wants to run again. We shall see.
—–
And again, “Bobby” Jindal is only going to 40 years old in 2012. He might run to raise his name recognition, but he likely won’t get the nomination.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“I don’t know. Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and Jeb Bush all have at least comparable levels of name recognition”
It’s too early for Jeb. Giuliani is still pro-choice. Romney is still LDS.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Palin is distilled Modern Wingnut: a bit Freeper, a bit LGF, a bit militia. There’s a donor base for her, large and small.
That said, since Petey has come out for her chances, she’s clearly going to be impeached as Alaska Governor next year and will then vanish without trace after an unexplained snowmobile excursion, leaving only a pair of moose-fur boots behind.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Are you f’n kidding me? The only reason she gets by is on her looks and her “charm” (in quotes because it behooves me.) The reason its called “conventional wisdom” is because its mostly true.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Hey Petey,
I think Huckabee has the Huckabee votes lined up for 2012.
Who the fuck are we kidding?!?!? We’re getting RickRolled here. Palin in 2012? No Fucking way. She’d crash and burn quicker than Rudy and Fred.
She has NO base. She actually is Stupid. Have any of you read the Branchflower report. What an idiot.
I haven’t commented in a while, and I’m just wondering, is Petey the resident troll?
WTF.
She is stupid. Lacks gravitas. Doesn’t know issues. And she’s mean. Huckabee will destroy her. And you know how I know that. Because he’s a seasoned politician. It takes skills to get elected governor of a midsized stated and reelected several times. It takes skill to be the last one standing in a heavily contested national GOP primary – and up against a lot of GOP establishment as well.
Sarah Palin’s ascension to national politics is a result of Kristol whispering in Aged McCain’s ear. She didn’t compete with Rudy, Mccain, Thompson, Romney, etc . . . . She made her name as a result of running up against an incredibly unpopular Alaskan political establishment. THAT is the only real accomplishment she has ever done. She’s just red meat for the social conservatives, who are becoming less relevant with each passing year.
Huckabee can at least effectively “pivot” to populist issues. All Palin can do is cry white victimization and real off played out GOP bromides (I hope those protesters realize that those troops are protecting their right to protest – What occupying Iraq has to do with the 1st Amendment is beyond me.
Whitey Please
October 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
What makes you say this?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“Lacks gravitas. Doesn’t know issues.”
Agree. But think she can remedy both points in three years.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
There is absolutely no way that Sarah Palin will have a political career after this debacle. John McCain has already started throwing her under the bus and his campaign is repeatedly driving over her. And that’s bus thing? They’ve been doing it for a while now.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Pretty Please.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Petey wrote “Not only is she the favorite in ‘12 for the nomination, but if the economy is still weak, she’ll win the general.”
Bear in mind that back in late August, Petey wrote that if McCain picked Palin as his running mate, he would win the election. When Donald Rumsfeld developed a track record like this, he stopped making predictions.
Moreover, the actual contraction of GDP during the Great Depression lasted a total of 15 quarters. Since GDP has almost certainly been falling in the current quarter (3Q 2008), and probably fell in the previous quarter (2Q 2008), a contraction of equivalent length would still produce growth in the final year prior to the 2012 election, which – as Larry Bartels among others has shown – is what actually counts for electoral prospects.
That said, Palin may have a shot at the GOP nod in 2012 given the absence of any other logical front runner. I have to say, though, that at the time I thought Dan Quayle in 1996 would have a great shot at the GOP nod, but he had health problems, and in 2000 his campaign went nowhere. These things are just hard to predict.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
You don’t understand. Palin is just plain not very intelligent and has never demonstrated a desire to honestly enrich herself intellectually. She can’t ‘remedy’ that because that’s just who she is–it’d be like taking a look at Bush and saying, “Oh, I’m sure he’ll get smarter, just wait a few years.”
October 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Palin can’t possibly win the general election in 2012. She knows this. She knows, that to overcome the current perception of her outside her base, she needs some experience that demonstrates familiarity with national issues. Palin is also an exceedingly ambitious woman. She knows that if she runs and loses in 2012, as she surely would, she hurts her chances down the road tremendously.
What I expect at this point from Palin is that she’ll finish her term as governor, do a two-year $50,000,000 stint with Fox News, then run for the House or a Senate seat in Alaska, and only then really think about a presidential run. If she actually wants to be President, and I believe she does, she should be and is looking at a 2020 run.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“What makes you say this?”
History.
Assuming this November’s election comes off as expected, I’d say the GOP has a 95%+ chance of picking up seats in the House in 2010 and an 85% chance of picking up seats in the Senate.
And if the economy is still weak, as it seems like it will be, they should be able to pick up quite a few seats.
The Party controlling the WH has lost seats in 34 out of the last 37 off-year elections. Voters have liked using off-year elections to put a check on the Presidency for the duration of the republic’s history. They do it even when the Presidents are popular.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“Bear in mind that back in late August, Petey wrote that if McCain picked Palin as his running mate, he would win the election.”
Link?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Palin wins the nomination in 2012 only if the GOP becomes a fringe party on its way to extinction. If the Republican Party has any interest in surviving as a major player, then it will have to jettison the absurd “conservative” ideology that has destroyed this country. That would leave no room for freaks like Palin.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Palin will have competition. I would think the GOP has some other ambitious and sexy small town mayors, rightfully thinking they,too, should run in 2012.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
If Obama wins, and Palin doesn’t get impeached or wind up in jail, there will likely be immense focus on her failed re-election attempt in the Alaska gubernatorial race.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
The Democratic focus on electability is an offshoot of losing 7 of the last 10 presidential elections and running against the detested Bush and his legacy
October 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
petey, what you did say wasn’t that mccain would win but that palin was an excellent choice who would bring up all of obama’s experience weaknesses. i remember it vividly.
you were wrong then and you’re likely wrong now: the reason that palin’s negatives have taken off is quite evident: she is a liar of the likes we have rarely seen in national politics. she lies about everything, all the time. the public may not figure out each and every nuance, but the public has figured her out.
i have no idea what goes through the minds of the gop hardcore, so i certainly won’t say that she can’t win the gop nomination (although i think it is extremely unlikely that she will), but i’m willing to bet cash money today at whatever odds petey would care to suggest that she will not win in 2012: she is what ad makers who enjoy producing attack creative dream of at night.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Palin might think she’s viable for 2012, but the other Republican candidates will eat her alive, imo.
All the stuff that the Obama campaign isn’t flogging, like Palin’s secessionist AIP credentials, will be front and center courtesy of her fellow Republicans. Look for Palin’s competitors to echo her lines from this election season by saying things like “This is not a woman who sees America the way you and I see America.” Put out a few commercials with Vogler the AIP founder’s comments about how “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government,” side by side with footage of Palin’s video message to the 2008 AIP convention wishing them luck and telling them to “keep up the good work”, and Palin’s toast.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
There is no way you can hide from the press and win the nomination. She can’t engage the press and seem anything other than an idiot. I don’t see how she stands next to Huckabee and anyone supports her ahead of him. I don’t see how she finishes her term without another pile of scandals because she doesn’t care enough about our system of government to respect it.
Dole is another losing VP nominee who won his party’s nomination, though it did take 20 years and was barely more successful than Mondale.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“petey, what you did say wasn’t that mccain would win but that palin was an excellent choice”
Yup. McCain had a very lousy hand to play, but Palin was the best card he had.
If the financial meltdown hadn’t happened, it would have given him an outside shot at winning, which is more chance than he should have had this year.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Assuming this November’s election comes off as expected, I’d say the GOP has a 95%+ chance of picking up seats in the House in 2010 and an 85% chance of picking up seats in the Senate.
And if the economy is still weak, as it seems like it will be, they should be able to pick up quite a few seats.
Here’s the list of Senate elections in 2010. I’d say the Republicans’ absolute limit as to how many Senate seats they’ll pick up, in an overwhelming wave election, is six. Which would leave the Democrats with a comfortable majority. The Democrats have many more plausible pickup opportunities.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
One thing to remember is that Palin is already 44. We’ll see how she looks at 48 but talk of a 2020 run is silly. I doubt she’ll be sending nearly so many starbursts ricocheting around America’s living rooms when she’s 56. And if you don’t think that that’s what makes her brand of moronic cutesiness so palatable, think again. (Fun fact: the top two google hits for “cutesiness” are about Sarah Palin.)
October 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Here’s the list of Senate elections in 2010″
The fact that the Dems have a favorable Senate map in ‘10 is why I put the GOP’s chances of picking up Senate seats at “only” 85%. It would be higher than that with a neutral map.
“I’d say the Republicans’ absolute limit as to how many Senate seats they’ll pick up, in an overwhelming wave election, is six. Which would leave the Democrats with a comfortable majority.”
I think the Dems are almost definitely going to still hold the Senate majority in 2011, but given the likely bounceback dynamics, I expect some Dem seats that currently seem safe to be at risk. For example, Boxer had better hope Arnold doesn’t run…
And a six seat loss would be reasonably tragic, even if we still have the majority.
—–
Tangentially, one of the core reasons I was opposed to Obama in the primaries is that the next Congress is going to be the best Congress in a generation for passing progressive legislation, and I think Obama will get too little done with that rare opportunity. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
At Ezra’s site, on August 23, 2008, at 8:11 am, noted prognosticator Petey wrote: “Indeed. If he goes with Palin, he wins the election.”
October 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Whoops, screwed up the link!
October 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2008&base_name=biden_as_v#comments
October 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
petey, there is, of course, no alternative universe in which we can test the best card thesis, but that doesn’t mean i agree: the best card mccain had was lieberman. the press would still be swooning to this day, and there would have been considerable knock-on effects.
the next best card was huckabee, who would have brought palin’s salience to the base without her mammoth problem with honesty.
palin was a base card in a non-base year: the polling tells us that she has added nothing, net, to where mccain was prior to picking her.
i think she was a gambler’s choice, not a “best” choice.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I can’t believe any of you are actually taking Petey seriously enough to argue with him.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Excellent googling work, Rich C. I stand corrected. I was deeply pissed off about the Biden pick at that moment, deeply pissed off about Ezra lying through his teeth about the events of 2002 in that post, hadn’t had my coffee yet, and was dead wrong in the comment you flag.
In my defense, my thinking corrected itself quite rapidly, however. I didn’t continue saying that once I’d had a few hours to process the news.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Assuming Obama wins (knock on wood), I don’t think Palin will ever be the Republican nominee. A few reasons:
1) People just don’t like her very much. Palin has often been compared to George W. Bush because both came to prominence as lightly experienced governors with questions about their intelligence and seriousness. The difference is that people actually liked GWB in 2000 and he still only managed to get elected by a fluke of chance in an election that a lot of people thought didn’t matter that much. I still don’t understand the GOP’s choice to make Palin a hatchet-man culture warrior instead of merely the hockey mom next door. They wasted all of her potential appeal to independents by doing so and I doubt they picked up much with the base by going that route. As a consequence, Palin is going to start 2012 with a major handicap. You need more than hardcore conservatives to win the GOP nomination.
2) I don’t think she is very skilled. Not only will she have to learn the issues, but she will have to build a national organization. I don’t get the sense she is capable of either of those things. Notwithstanding the fact that she may not be very bright, she is going to have to overcome the stigma that she is not very bright, which may in fact be more difficult. If she had burst on the scene in 2012 as a six year governor, she might have been able to sneak up on people, but that opportunity is now lost. She is not going to be able to get through a campaign for the top of the ticket without being vetted. Every gaffe she makes will be amplified by the media because it fits the preexisting media narrative. She could flame out very quickly.
3) Time is working against her in a unique fashion. The conservative media loves her because she gives them great big starbursts. Will she still be able to do that at 48? At 52? If a large segment of your popularity is based on your ability to flirt with the American public, what happens when they don’t want to flirt back? If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I think this is good advice for everyone. We should all have VERY low degrees of confidence for any and all of Petey’s assumptions. He’s usually wrong.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Bingo…she’ll be played on SNL by an aged Dana Carvey church lady next time around.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
It’s striking to me, though, that explicit “electability” arguments don’t seem to feature heavily in GOP presidential primaries.
That’s because the GOP does elections backwards. What happens on our side? The candidate sets the agenda. The GOP has its agenda already set. Its ideology is frozen, carved in stone. The candidate merely has to follow it, mouth the platitudes, point to the pre-selected misdirection. Electability is not a factor, because in a sense the candidates are interchangeable. The agenda is what matters. Everything else – candidates included – is mere window dressing.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
95%+ chance of picking up seats in the House in 2010
…
The Party controlling the WH has lost seats in 34 out of the last 37 off-year elections.
Even if we go by this standard, 34/37 is about 92%, not 95%+. I know that sounds like nitpicking, but it’s the difference between “very likely” (92%) and “almost certain” (95%+).
And who’s to say this is a phenomenon measureable in pure chance terms? Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say. Who’s to say the situation won’t fundamentally change? Who’s to say that what matters isn’t the characteristics of the nation and the individual districts in November 2010?
If we just go by history, then the chances of a black man being elected President of the United States is 0.00%. But we know that’s not true. The actual candidates and the situation at the time of the election matter.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Given the economic cycle, 2012 should be ripe for a renewed Obama Presidency.
Palin vs Obama? If the economy has improved, Palin will be in the position Dole was in 1996 – running against a popular President in a time of economic stability.
I have a feeling that between now and 2012, the triad of “God, Guns and Gays” will have a lot less rallying power.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Thanks Petey, I appreciate it. But even given your defense, the parallel seems rather striking to me: despite a great deal of evidence that Palin is not well liked by the broader (not just Alaskan or base GOP) electorate, you predict that she would have be a competitive general election candidate (one who can win in a down economic year), just as, back in August, despite her limited experience, ties to Alaskan separatists (which, I have to say, just makes me miss David Foster Wallace. The AIP seems like something he would have made up), and ethics scandal you predicted she would deliver the general election to McCain. Your sense of Palin’s political capabilities really does seem to be untethered from actual developments.
Plus, even by the standard of the Great Depression, 2012 should be an up year economically.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
DO NOT underestimate Palin as a future presidential candidate. Whatever her faults, she has established herself as the leading populist in contemporary U.S. politics.
The “regular folks” she claims to speak for are going to bear the brunt of this economic downturn — the tax cuts, mortgage rewrites, stimulus package, etc., that are being floated won’t compensate for lost jobs, forced moves from depressed areas and family breakups that are sure to come. These working-class and small-business victims will be desperate and seething mad by 2012, and having Obama as a target will give their anger a sharper racial/class focus.
Palin could be another Huey Long. Read the Wikipedia article on Long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
Note Long’s come-from-nowhere background. And (in “Long in the Senate, 1932-35″) Long’s maneuvers against financial regulatory reform as a “sellout to big business.” And (in “Continued Control over Louisiana, 1932-35″), the parallels between Long’s dealings with the oil industry in Louisiana and Palin’s in Alaska.
Populism in Long’s day was a left-wing movement. Palin’s populism would be right-wing, with obvious differences in emphasis. (On taxes, for example, he went after the rich; she would probably opt for tax write-offs that effectively penalize childless “elites.”) Ideological slant aside, though, their us vs. them, resentment-based, religiously accented appeals to marginalized constituencies are spookily similar.
Had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he might well have fatally weakened FDR’s bid for reelection in 1936 and set himself up as the progressive-populist savior in 1940. If/when McCain loses this year, Palin will be similarly positioned to cast herself as the conservative-populist savior in 2012 or ‘16.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking she won’t have a devoted and potent following.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It seems like there are two issues here. I think we can mostly agree that Palin would not have a chance in the general; even if she becomes a Rhodes scholar that can’t wipe out the memory of Tina Fey and Katie Couric. But that doesn’t mean that she wouldn’t run, and possibly get nominated. Her unfavorables are high, but are they high among Republicans? The panic that Huckabee caused this year will be nothing like what Palin would cause if she even came close to winning a primary.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Re: Not only is she the favorite in ‘12 for the nomination, but if the economy is still weak, she’ll win the general.
How many losing VP candidates who were not already sitting VPs swent on to win the nomination for president? I can think of just two: FDR, who won courtesy of the Depression (Mickey Mouse and Daisy Duck could have taken the White House that year for the Dems), and Dole in 96, who lost. The corollary of the old saying “Nothing succeeds like success” is that “Nothing fails like failure.” Ms Palin is going to have Failure stamped all over her dance card and her political future (outside Alaska) will be the same as Dan Quayle’s.
Re: Think Bobby Jindal. He was smart enough to stay of the sinking ship this time around, and he’ll be back.
He was also very lucky that Hurricane Gustav gave him a very good excuse not to participate in the coming fiasco. It’s quite possible he might have been tapped by McCain but for the fact that he could hardly show up to party in Minneapolis with a potential disaster threatening his state. I do agree: we will be hearing more from him.
Re: Palin already has the Huckabee votes locked up.
Unless Huckabee decides he wants it for himself again.
Re: They’re close to being guaranteed of having very good results in the 2010 elections
I very much disagree. While I’m not sure about the House, the Senate map is not all that favorable to them in 2010 either (though it’s not highly favorable to the Dems as this year’s and 2006’s has been). Their best bet will come from targetting Reid, which would be a nice scalp for them to gloat over, but they have some weak spots too (Bunning in KY, Mccain’s seat in AZ).
Re: And if the economy is still weak, as it seems like it will be, they should be able to pick up quite a few seats.
Which explains the GOP congressional victories in 1934 and the Democratic victories in 2002!
Re: It’s too early for Jeb.
It will still be too early for Jeb in the year 2112. America is no more going to elect another Bush than it would have elected Buchannan’s brother in 1872 or Hoover’s in 1948. Besides which, the bloom is very much off the Jeb Bush rose down in Florida, and the Florida politician to watch will be Charlie Crist. If the GOP decides it needs to capture the center (a plausible conclusion) with a dose of populism, then Crist will be their man, maybe with Jindal along for the ride to keep the Dobson clique happy.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
the next best card was huckabee, who would have brought palin’s salience to the base without her mammoth problem with honesty.
i think she was a gambler’s choice, not a “best” choice.
Right on both counts. Saying that Palin was a “best choice” takes her as a complete unknown, who either might or might not turn out to be a good campaigner. Which is what she was to us – a risk that could go either way.
But McCain certainly had the time and opportunity to size her up a little better than we did. If he had done that, if anyone had done that, I suspect that the decision calculus would be different. How can you hear this woman talk and not know she’s not ready? And that is even if you want to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is smart enough to eventually hone her skills to be a winning type of candidate. Today, she’s not going to be a help.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Palin’s core problem isn’t that she’s a little bit dumb or lies a lot. Her core problem is that she’s kind of lazy. She knew that she was being considered (via Bloody Bill) for the VP slot almost from the day she was sworn in as governor, and yet she did nothing to prepare for the eventuality. You could argue that she had another job to do, and yes she did, but she did that shoddily. Lots of broad gestures that involved no grappling with the detail work of actually governing. Her connections with Big Oil and her Evangelical base will keep her profile up there, but there are other Evangelicals who aren’t lazy, and Big Oil has never lacked for toadies.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Not only is she the favorite in ‘12 for the nomination, but if the economy is still weak, she’ll win the general.
It’s certainly reassuring to see Petey making this claim–when is the last time he has not been wrong about a political prediction?
October 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota’s governor. I will be surprised if he does *not* run in 2012 (local rumor has it that he was McCain’s 2nd choice, and very upset that he wasn’t chosen). He would be a good candidate.
If the Republicans nominate Palin in 2012, assuming the economy is doing ok, the electoral map will look like the inverse of 1980 (I won’t say 1984, because no Democrat will ever win Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, or Oklahoma, so the Republicans are guaranteed a few states.)
October 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Lobstakilla @68
Hilarious!
“My opponent pals around with – [face twitch] – SATAN!”
October 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
August 2008 was Palin’s moment in the sun. She’s been revealed to be a small-minded, incompetent, nutcase from a backwater state – that now hates her!
As for 2012 – If the GOP doesn’t want to sink into obscurity they will have to stop kissing the rings of the fundicrats. Palin will be on her 2nd year as a FauxNewsModel.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
In order to run in the primaries she’d have to participate in debates and give interviews: those primary debates are far more open, less, structured, and contain more “real” debate and actual opportunity to follow-up. She’d be incapable of withstanding that.
And again: a running-mate might get away with doing no interviews, but not a primary candidate for the presidency.
Even an experienced debater like Hillary Clinton was tripped-up when a follow-up exposed her double-speak on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Imagine what would happen to Sarah Palin!
No: it’s inconceivable. She would have absolutely no ability to survive all that.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Last night we watched the opener of Discovery Channel’s new Iditarod series (which has some potential but we’ll see). When Palin came on screen fairly early on, we both gasped in horror! Of course, she is the Gov but after everything that’s gone on, she’s come to personify something far more sinister.
Let her run in 2012, I say. Should be quite the spectacle. I doubt she’ll be there though, as her performance thus far and her scandalous backstory, may end up being too much for even the most craven wingnuts to stomach let alone the Grand Ol’ Party!
October 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Petey is of course known for making some dubious predictions in politics and basketball (or “provocative” or “bold” if you’re feeling kind), but this has to be one of the craziest Petey predictions I can recall. Palin has been exposed as being woefully inadequate for being a VP, much less President. That’s not just liberal opinion. That’s conventional wisdom now. In all likelihood she’ll be associated with one of the worst performing GOP presidential campaigns since Goldwater (or at least Dole). In four years she’ll still be a joke, not a serious presidential contender. All the GOP’s PR men and all the Fox flacks won’t be able to put Palin back together again. She’s damaged goods. At best she’ll be useful to serious GOP candidates in targeted appeals to the evangelical community. It’ll be Huckabee and Romney in 2012, with maybe Jindal as a dark horse (no pun intended).
October 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Two really big reason Palin is the force to be reckoned with in the GOP: she’s willing to change to suit the political climate. It’s precisely the people who expect her to be a right wing nut, or who have been told that’s what she is, who will be disarmed when she starts reasching out to the middle. The queen of junior high is really hateful until the instant she invites you to her birthday party in the nicest terms.
She’s also got the cultural thing going big time. The Jacob Weisbergs of the world will write cringe-worthy, red-base energizing things about her as long as she’s on the national stage. They’ll hate her worse than they hate Bush, and it will be very personal. That kind of mindless antipathy (I’m not talking about the many legitimate criticisms of her) will fuel her rise. It’s not that different from Hillary.
Of course Palin also seems to be a corrupt, incompetent, largely unprincipled politician who has already burned bridges with several conservative opinion leaders. No one ever called Huckabee a cancer. All that stuff is hard to overcome, even for a person who’s as charming as Palin can be. The optimisitic forecast, however is that the GOP follows up their demoralizing loss by going dysfunctional and nominating an inept Mondale-Dukakis duo for a couple of elections. Palin would fit that bill perfectly.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
What does it say about the republican party that so many people are seriously considering a corrupt, dishonest, vindictive, astoundingly ignorant person, unable to speak three or four coherent sentences in a row without a script, as a potential presidential nominee? That it’s a corrupt, dishonest, vindictive, ignorant party, I guess.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Check this out:
http://palinaspresident.com/
October 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
What does it say about the republican party that so many people are seriously considering a corrupt, dishonest, vindictive, astoundingly ignorant person, unable to speak three or four coherent sentences in a row without a script, as a potential presidential nominee?
That they just spent eight years with a corrupt, dishonest, vindictive, astoundingly ignorant person, unable to speak three or four coherent sentences in a row without a script, as president, and haven’t figured out that this is why they’re currently fucked?
October 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The charade ends on election day. She will not be taken seriously again.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
As a Democrat I hope she runs not just in 2012, but 2016, 2020, and on and on for as long as she’s alive. I have absolutely no problem with the GOP losing every presidential election, and I have absolutely no problem with watching her lose every four years. I’d quite enjoy it actually.
PS. Parah Salin (parasailin’) is a good pun. How has this not been used to make a million jokes? Someone get on that please.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
> Excellent googling work, Rich C. I stand corrected.
> I was deeply pissed off about the Biden pick at
> that moment, deeply pissed off about Ezra lying
> through his teeth about the events of 2002 in that
> post, hadn’t had my coffee yet, and was dead wrong in
> the comment you flag.
>
> In my defense, my thinking corrected itself quite
> rapidly, however. I didn’t continue saying that once
> I’d had a few hours to process the news.
Ah, the smell of vintage Petey in the morning: correct predictions are logged in the “freakishly easy, 100% success rate” column while incorrect predictions (the majority) and wildly off-target bloviation is dropped down the memory hole and not counted in the average. Reminds me of the neighborhood where I lived centrally among a garbage dump, a sewage processing plant, and a paint factory.
Cranky
October 15th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Palin v. Romney v. Huckabee on a race to the right . . .
October 16th, 2008 at 2:59 am
She has to win re-election in Alaska in 2010, and after what she’s been through, I’m not sure she will. Sure, she might; after all, Alaska elected her in the first place, but I certainly wouldn’t count that as a safe seat right now.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The fact that you people despise her so is that best indicator that she is destined for greatness. Palin/Jindal 2112 !
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Incredible site! viagra