Posted on 07/27/2010 3:25:02 PM PDT by techno
Yesterday at Rightosphere, AKReport laid out her blueprint of How Palin Will Win the Presidency in a very succinct but comprehensive manner. Today I would like to address several points that she made in my usual iconoclastic style to perhaps give a different slant of how I see the political landscape unfolding for Sarah Palin in 2011 and 2012 on her way to winning the presidency.
A POSITIVE CAMPAIGN
AKReport: "Don't expect any cheesy negative ad's coming from the Palin 12 campaign...Palin has high favorables with the party, so there is no real point for her to get into the dirt against other 2012 challengers. Palin already has high negatives with independents (fair weather voters) so going negative will only turn them off more. A positive campaign will be one of the keys to boosting her numbers with independents."
I do not look at the advertising or marketing world in terms of positive and negative. For example, have you ever heard of the expression one man's meat is not another man's poison? In other words people are always going to interpret messaging differently than their neighbors. One person might see the sun's rays as POSITIVE for him/her to obtain needed Vitamin D and an attractive tan and the next person may see the sun's rays as a NEGATIVE, and the reason his/her relative died of skin cancer.
Instead for politicians, messaging is either EFFECTIVE or INEFFECTIVE in terms of attracting voters into your tent regardless if they are in the primaries or in the general election. Any wise person will tell you that is all you influence if that, that the interpretation of your message will seen through millions of different eyes seeing it from a different point of view or through biased lens, that your ultimate goal in messaging is to IDENTIFY who is most likely to vote for you (age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, income, education, marital status, church attendance etc.), to TARGET your audience (potential supporters) and then to deliver your message in such an interesting, enchanting, or EFFECTIVE manner that it registers with them (rhythm and style of the message) and provokes them through finding rational or emotional sympathy or approval with the content of the message to either make a decision to support them, cause them to want to get more information (poke a nose into your tent) or to at least remain in the undecided category and not instead vote for your opponent.
And if linking the radical nature of Obama's czars and their lack of business experience to the continuing recession and the mounting debt that threatens America's solvency can be delivered in this manner it may be seen as POSITIVE by many "fair weather" INDEPENDENTS but NEGATIVE by quite a few indies as well but the bottom line must be, does the ad or series of ads arouse enough targeted recipients to ultimately to cause them to go down to the polling place to vote for you. As to the folks who are NOT targets of your messaging, why should Palin care how a pro-choice single woman under 30, a tenured Ivy League academic, an African-American woman on welfare, or a Hispanic male who favors amnesty receives her messaging--they are NOT the targeted audience and they would never vote for her anyways regardless of her message.
Imho, proper political messaging for Palin must include what she want to communicate (oonservative message) or what values she represents, that it not be contradictory but consistent, one ad not working against another, and above all the messaging not arise from sentimentality or from a sense of political correctness, RINO BS, or MSM intimidation to cater to identity politics (appealing to Hispanics) but again be specifically targeted to maximize Palin's vote, regardless of what their skin color is. After that it is up to Palin to motivate these folks to vote and the ground game to get them transported to the polling station.
THE FIRST REPUBLICAN DEBATE
"This is her big chance to erase the many 2008 inductive fallacies propagated in the media vacuum. PALIN WILL BE UNDERESTIMATED COMING INTO HER FIRST DEBATE, which will work to her advantage. This is when the 'not qualified' myth will be busted in front of millions of viewers across the country...finally if Palin is the only woman running it will naturally pull more attention to her debate performance..."
The first GOP debate will occur sometime in the summer of 2011, a year from now if 2008 is any indication. By then Sarah Palin should be a known quantity and the "2008 fallacies" should be mostly erased, if the success that Palin has had between July 2009 and July 2010 can be used as a measuring stick.
I see the overwhelming success that Palin will have in the midterms in electing her "mama grizzlies" to office and being highly instrumental in orchestrating a GOP takeover of the House (or even the Senate) as going a long way to torpedo the "not qualified myth" with the GOP conservative base but I do agree with AKReport there will always be some doubting Thomases who will view Palin as too young or inexperienced or by virtue of her gender not qualified to be CIC.
But contrary to AKReport I see the first GOP debate as a great chance for Palin to impose her imprint on the entire election cycle from the get-go, to establish certain dominant themes that she wants to emphasize or bring to the table, and to demonstrate her ability and self-confidence to clarify the issues and to communicate her worldview and specifically how she would approach tackling each issue. Marketing people would call it establishing or imposing your POLITICAL BRAND in the marketplace and that I believe should be Palin's main goal in her first debate regardless of the fanfare surrounding Palin as a female candidate and the undue attention she will get because of it. The bromide "you only get one chance to make a good first impression" applies here as well. Demonstrate vision; communicate hope.
THE IOWA SPLIT
"Call it "gerrymandering" or being the only woman in the 2012 field, it should provide Palin with a split of the men's vote and a win in Iowa. This is why the 'mama grizzly' ad is key. ALSO: Huckabee not running will make it easier for her to just camp out in western Iowa."
In the 2008 Iowa caucuses, 60% of all caucus attendees identified themselves as evangelical voters (EV). That is the one abiding fact that Sarah Palin or any other GOP candidate cannot ignore or dismiss. It is also the primary reason imho why John McCain skipped Iowa in 2008 and despite pouring millions of dollars into Iowa to schmooze EV's, Mitt Romney only got 19% of the EV and finished second to Mike Huckabee garnering 46% of the EV and finishing first with 34.4% of the caucus voters.
Being the first state on the docket, Iowa is important, but as McCain showed in 2008 not crucial to one's eventual success to securing the GOP nomination. The composition of the electorate is simply not McCain's cup of tea but frankly neither is it Romney's either. But it is Palin's.
Yes, a second place showing was good for Romney but did it springboard him to a victory in New Hampshire, his own backyard in 2008? The answer is no. McCain beat Romney by 5.5% there in a state that Mitt had to win to provide him with enough political momentum or credibility to move on to SC, Florida and beyond in order to undermine the growing narrative that McCain was now the prohibitive favorite.
I do not expect Romney to employ the same strategy again in Iowa. Instead I expect him to adopt the same strategy that McCain did in 2008 and instead focus much more attention to winning NH, SC, and Florida. There are already stories leaking out in this election cycle that Romney's strategy is to SURRENDER THE EVANGELICAL VOTE and to instead pursue a "blue-state strategy" to secure the nomination.
But enough about Romney. What does this mean for Palin if Romney does not actively compete in Iowa? What it means is that Romney has no chance of finishing first and secondly he is NOT Palin's main competition there. So the $64,000 question becomes will Mike Huckabee run again in 2012? If he does Huck and Palin will be the two main competitors imho for the huge EV. There is no way that Huck will get 46% of the EV again but at this time I am not about to write Huck off either from winning Iowa if he runs.
Ultimately the results of the Iowa caucus are determined by your organization on the ground but by also how many candidates are in the field. The more candidates the better chance Huck has to prevail; the fewer candidates, the easier it will be for Palin to coalesce conservativs and evangelicals around her.
Am I therefore optimistic that Palin can take Iowa? You betcha! Endorsing Branstad was a great first step to introduce herself as a good Republican. From that point it will be up to her to leverage that endorsement to sell herself to prominent Republicans in the state and to penetrate deeply into the evangelical community. Is there any doubt that Palin is up to the task?
Finally, I don't see gender so much of an issue in Iowa in 2012 as opposed to electability (can you beat Obama) due to how much more loathed the Messiah will be in 18 months, a candidate's perceived economic and financial acumen to fix the economy and whether the candidate has conservative roots or boasts conservative principles, being more important to Iowans and all Americans by early 2012.
STRONG 2ND PLACE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
"Palin will be aiming for first place in New Hampshire, but expectations will be a strong second after a win in Iowa. As long as it's not a blowout win by Romney, Palin will be in good shape. If the margin is Romney +5 or less...then I consider it a victory in NH, and making it a 2-person race for the Republican nomination."
Refer back to what I think Romney's strategy will be in NH. I look at it as his stronghold, a home game and a state he must win. If he loses again in the words of Don Meredith, "The Party's over" may come true.
Romney will not be easy to beat in NH. It is situated next door to Massachusetts and Mitt is looked upon by many as a regional favorite son. Sarah Palin is not the odds-on favorite to win NH. But the New Orleans Saints were not either to prevail in last year's Super Bowl.
Here are a few considerations that may tip NH to Palin eventually:
1)Palin will be a lot better known after 18 months and will be seen as being instrumental to helping the GOP take back the House.
2) If her endorsee, Kelly Ayotte, becomes the next Senator from NH, Palin will call in that marker.
3)Obama's job approval/disapproval rating is now 42/57 (Rasmussen). If they stay that way the lingering disgust with Obama will supersede any regional loyalty that that folks in NH may feel towards Romney.
As to how solid Romney's support is now in NH, four state polls were taken in the last two months by PPP in comparison to polls taken in Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvnia and yesterday Florida earlier in the year all show Romney relinquishing double digit leads between the first and second poll.
4)Palin will be running as Reagan conservative and invoke Reagan's setback in Iowa in 1980 and his huge comeback win in NH which re-ignited his campaign on his way to the Presidency. She will ask for their support as well.
5) NH is known as a state where retail politicking is king, and as we all kmow Sarah Palin is the queen of retail politicking.
So unlike AKReport I am not so willing to concede the NH battleground to Romney and with the 'Cuda anything is possible.
South Carolina knockout and the Floodgates open
"If Huckabee is not in the race, then I see this as a blowout win for Palin, and then the Palin Power Phenomena will be an unstoppable flow of momentum going into the general election."
First I see Palin winning SC even if Huck is a player then. The Haley endorsement and Palin's standing with SC evangelicals will seal the deal. She will also probably have the blessing of the Graham family (Billy and Franklin).
But I don't see the road as rosily as AKReport does. Yes no GOP candidate since 1980 who has won the GOP primary in SC has been denied the GOP nomination, but there is always a first time for everything. We cannot forget that the GOP is proposing to make over its primary system for 2012 to ensure meaningful contests take place well into the spring, thus lengthening the process, and putting a premium on longevity and financial wherewithal rather than the early knockout punch in previous election cycles. In this new format it becomes easier for Romney to run with his "blue-state strategy" and his personal fortune and if Romney falters for Gingrich or someone else to have enough time to pick up the baton and run with it.
But fortunately for Palin Jeb Bush ruled himself out today to making a presidential run in 2012. So she does not have to worry about Jeb, although the Bush family will be working behind the scenes to undermine Palin and to draw out the nomination so that the "anyone but Palin candidate" prevails in the end. The GOP establishemnt and Beltway elites are not about to abandon the presidential playing field to Palin without a fight even if that means causing internecine warfare to emerge and metastasize within the party or between the GOP and the Tea Party movement as the primary season moves along. A Palin victory will not be as easy or inevitable as AKReport suggests, although I wish it would be. And of course the MSM will do their part as well not to crown Palin as the GOP nominee either even if she wins SC.
Obama's poll numbers
"...if Obama's job approval numbers are below 45% then I see Palin winning in 2012."
No sitting POTUS since 1952 in the Gallup poll running for re-election has ever won a second term if his job approval number going into the fall campaign (Sept 2012) was below 47% and none have been denied a second term if their job approval was above 51%. Between 47% and 51% lies the zone of uncertainty or vulnerability for Obama whether he will be re-elected or not. Today the Gallup DTP has Obama's job approval at 45%.
A key factor in the 2012 is the WHITE vote. Right now several pollsters have Obama pegged at 38% job approval with WHITE voters. He got 43% in the 2008 election. If Palin were to get 60%-62% of the WHITE vote in 2012, Jay Cost of the RCP horserace blog predicts that Palin would beat Obama despite Obama holding onto his A/A (95% and Hispanic supporters (66%) from 2008 which is not a given. Under this scenario Palin would get around 50%-51% of the total vote and Obama around 47%-48% and could win the electoral college a la George Bush in 2004 by a 286-252 electoral vote margin.
Thus I do not agree that Obama has to be at a maximum at 45% job approval for Palin to be elected.
So look for George Soros and the Left to do everything possible to set up a viable 3rd party presidential candidate to bleed away potential WHITE voters from Palin if she secures the nomination. Will it work? Stay tuned. We'll have to see who the candidate is and how viable he or she becomes, how hated Obama will be in 2012, how successful Palin is to hold WHITE conservatives and independents in check and not splinter off, and finally whether other 3rd party candidates (eg Ralph Nader) emerge to perhaps bleed votes away from Obama. Regardless, the goal of a 3rd party movement is crystal-clear, to hand Obama a second term in office.
A CLASH OF EGOS
"...her charismatic sarcasm is something that cuts under Obama's skin so deep...I don't think Obama could survive a debate with her because of his huge ego, and high expectations to "Destroy Palin". It will be something to watch, as the house of cards comes falling down with a few common sense zingers from the Thrilla of Wasilla."
Again I think AKReport is too optimistic about Palin's apparent superiority over Obama in the debating arena and that it will resonate among the American public. Sure the folks on our side will know she took the Messiah to the woodshed (as she did to Biden), but will Obama's supporters and drones and undecided or swing voters know that after the debate? I think not as Obama's propaganda machine in the MSM (and later entertainment industry) swings into full gear and goes all out to defend Obama's stage performance and instead savages everything that Palin said during the debate or in their estimation what she should have said and then go on to mock her for her hairstyle, her wardrobe, her jewelry and the color of her shoes and course for being a woman. In contrast these so-called journalists and pundits, actually lackeys, will extol how well Obama carried himself on stage, how presidential he looked and sounded, that he was forthcoming and convincing (although he was lying through his teeth which they will not tell you) and that he put the upstart Palin in her place with his grace and with, implying Palin was not worthy to be on the same stage as the Messiah.
Don't expect Palin to have an easy ride to the WH with the MSM totally on Obama's proverbial corner and with RINO's continually sniping in the background to the MSM that Palin is not listening to them, as it will take every personal resource available to Palin, including her personal faith in God and daily prayer, to overcome the huge advantage Obama has at his disposal, despite his low poll numbers (hopefully as well in 2012) and how much more loathed he will become in the heartland compared to now (inevitable). And don't forget the potential of massive voter fraud in 2012.
What are best chances for Palin to prevail? She has to knock him out and in boxing terms not leave it to the boxing judges to render a verdict (voter recounts, Supreme Court)on a split decision and that means beating Obama decisively with no questions asked. And again for her to prevail in this mannner a third party candidate must not be allowed to bleed off WHITE voters that could have gone to Palin. Yes, Palin, as I have already said, could beat Obama in a close election but for obvious reasons that is not my first option.
So what are chances that Palin can knock Obama out and win in a landslide? Perhaps a better question to ask is how likely is it that Obama will only get 37%-38% of the WHITE vote in 2012, with Palin getting between 60%-62% of it and the WHITE voter turnout as a percentage of the electorate rises again to 75% or above? (A recent PPP poll showed Palin beating Obama 55% to 36% among WHITE voters.) The answer to these two questions I believe will determine the results of the next presidential election regardless if Obama's minority followers and Leftist allies really believe he is the Messiah or how unqualified many folks feel Palin to be or hate her guts. Your own Brices Crossroads said it best a couple of days ago, "If the voters decide to fire Obama, THEY WILL VOTE FOR PALIN EVEN IF THEY HATE HER."
In other words the voters will decide whether they want to return to the glory days of Reagan and Reaganomics or accustom themselves to living under Obamacare and his socialist Utopia. The choice is theirs.
Thanks for that great analysis. I didn’t see any potential effects from the 2010 elections factored in. I expect lots of sparks to come out then.
BOR stalked for Romney last nite on Leno’s leftwing show. Almost felt sorry for Leno because he couldn’t get a word in edgewise; BOR hogged just like he hogs the time on his show.
He also supported “don’t ask, don’t tell”
I broke my own rule about not watching ABCNNBCBS. Sending self to Network’s Anonymous Camp.
Tim Pawlenty.
And I’m not supporting him, as much as pointing out that there are other Republicans who will be running who may have abilty, experience, and positions on the issues of the day.
I think former Gov. Gary Johnson will run, too. He is likely to attract far more of the Ron Paul supporters than Sarah Palin is, as he, too, is an ideological libertarian who was part of Paul’s campaign in 2008. (And that assumes Paul himself doesn’t run again!)
Hopefully most Freepers are not planning on voting for someone based on their Facebook postings and Twitters.
My analysis was based on answering AKReport point by point. She set the format, not me. Having said that I think she did a great job of clarifying the issues regarding the primaries and general election. She provided the road map and blazed the trail. Hopefully I made the trail a bit wider to navigate.
While conservative women are out testing the waters, political messages, endorsing, campaigning, raising money, taking on Obama/DNC/MSM directly, getting shot at and getting back up, WHERE ARE THE MEN?
Hiding as usual, shaking in their suits...afraid to make a ruckus.
The blog by AKreport he refers to:
http://www.rightosphere.com/blog.php?user=AKReport&blogentry_id=3881
The ability to communicate independently of the media is her strong point and is the #1 requirement for a Republican candidate.
She has already been nailed down on immigration. Many choose not to listen.
It is really hard to say “lets enforce existing law for a few years, shut down the border and deny freebies to illegal border invaders.” American people like that idea, party leaders do not.
A republican might not get the nod.
Oh yes they are.
Have you checked out Johnson on immigration? Youser!
I actually agree with you that Pawlenty has a chance of catching on in the primaries. But he’s a wuss who wouldn’t beat Obama and pretty milquetoast on his positions too. I think he and Mitt and to a lesser extent Huck and Newt are worries for the GOP—though the GOP brass wouldn’t so much see it that way.
I like Sarah best of all and I like her with running with Michele Bachmann. I really don't want anyone with roots in Washington, DC, and that's the one reason I'm not fully supporting Liz Cheney too.
Sarah Palin is much more than her FaceBook essays, which immediately make national headlines, but I think you already know that, Jack Black. I don't mind that you're not supporting her at this time. There's nothing better than a lively, robust and competitive GOP presidential primary to make our nominee all the much more stronger.
Yes, I have. He's pretty much a libertarian open-borders type. While I like a lot of his positions that's a show-stopper for me, so I won't be supporting him.
Which is kind of my point. I was intrigued by him, and unlike Palin he has been doing a lot of policy speeches and presenting his opinions on the issues. After a little bit of exposure to his platform, I saw I couldn't support him.
Palin seems to be running a no-issue campaign so far. And when she is occassionally cornered and forced to cough up an answer, she seems to be more or less a neo-con.
You couldn’t be more correct if you tried.
They’re pitiful! They long ago lost their .... backbones?
Spines?
ENOUGH of the pablum talk and “my good friend, Senator Demonface” - stand-up and fight!
Sarah, Michele, Jan Brewer, - they take it TO the Marxist and his party.
When you say neo-con, what does that mean?
There you go again, just making stuff up:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, I know that your past as governor of Alaska didn’t — was not the same time that Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona has gotten into office, but I assume that sort of governor to governor...
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: What’s your thought on the heat that she’s taking over this statute?
PALIN: I’m proud of Jan Brewer for standing up for the constituents in her state, sending a message to Washington, sending a message to President Obama saying, Hey, you need to do your job, sir. And if you’re not going to do it, OK, then we are compelled to do the job for you until you get it right.
President Obama has been suspiciously silent on this issue, hasn’t he? We don’t even know where he stands on immigration reform or securing our borders. He doesn’t talk about it. He gets to punt on that one. And that’s unfortunate because this is a big issue. It’s all about national security. It’s about our sister border states that are inundated with violence and with crime because people illegally crossing the border, engaging in illegal activities for too long now. And some of these border states are saying, Now we’ve had enough. I admire Jan Brewer for taking a stand.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think — I mean, for 20-some years, maybe even longer, even going back to President Reagan — everyone has always said, We’re going to secure the borders.
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Nobody has done anything. I mean, or almost nothing.
PALIN: Because they’ve made it political and they haven’t understood that unsecure borders isn’t fair to anybody. It’s not fair to American citizens who ware here legally, paying taxes, following the rules, doing all the things that an American citizen is expected to do. It’s not fair to them. But it’s not fair to the illegal aliens, either, here. They want to come pursue an American dream. Some of them do want to be here to work. But they’re forever going to have to hide because, you know, government’s going to crack down on them when (INAUDIBLE)
So they need to follow that path of legal citizenship, obviously. But these politicians, presidents in the past who have not secured the border, they’ve made it a political issue. They haven’t wanted to tick off a potential base of Hispanic voters, so they haven’t made the tough decisions. And that’s no way to solve the problem. That’s no way to solve any challenge in America, by ducking and hiding and creating division and making these partisan issues out of it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we have still more with Governor Sarah Palin. Governor Palin is blunt about what she would do about illegal immigration. She’s going to tell you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Continuing with former governor Sarah Palin on illegal immigration.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: Both parties have made promises. I mean, we pull up sound bites where, you know, both sides, you know, Democrat, Republicans, say, you know, Secure the border, secure the border. And then once in office, we certainly don’t see a whole lot of action. Had the election gone another way, or even if you were president, what would you do about immigration?
PALIN: The very first thing is literally secure the border!
VAN SUSTEREN: How?
PALIN: People mock the idea of a fence. What’s wrong with building a fence? Yes, let’s physically secure the border. Let’s ramp up border control. Let’s provide the tools for those who are putting their lives on the line in order to stop illegal immigration of these aliens. Those are a couple of things.
And then you don’t start talking about amnesty, either, kind of as this last-minute, Oh, anybody who’s here in the country right now, we’re going to provide you amnesty, and even though you’ve broken the law and we are a nation of laws, you’ve broken that, we’ll still give you — because then there’s going to be a huge influx of those wanting kind of at the last minute to come over the border because they know that they will forever then receive that amnesty.
So you don’t start talking about that, but the very first thing you do is physically, literally secure those borders. It baffles me and most Americans why for all these years presidents, administrations have spoken about it but never done it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592942,00.html
I think the economy is a pretty big issue and she’s positioning herself with a Reaganesque message on taxes, smaller government, a strong defense and a pro-life stance.
I think she’s still persuadable on some of her immigration position and so I’m hopeful she’ll come around and then be forceful on it.
I still lean towards the idea that Palin simply won’t run...but...this article is pretty persuasive. She might just run. If she does, she might actually win the nomination. And if she wins the nomination, she might just actually become President.....
The left wingers WANT SP as the nominee. They will cross over and vote for her in open primary states (NH?) to help nominate the “worst” possible GOP candidate.. Like Juan in 2008.
Point out what I made up?
I would quit posting that Greta interview. It was silly and made her sound confused. That’s what happens when a person is straddling the fence.
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.