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.
But how exactly do you figure "Honorable Gov. Palin" who quit after half her term?
Swore an oath, did she not? Failed to meet that oath, did she not?
His description is that they were social liberals, fiscal conservatives, i.e. Democrats with stock holdings.
They morphed into the anti-American globalist redistributionist RINOs who have wrecked the Republican Party's middle class coalition that Ronald Reagan brought together to win in 1980 and 1984.
It was so annoying. Even Megan did a little eye roll at one point as he broke in while she was in the middle of making her point.
He's just unwatchable!
She swore to not quit?
What the hell are you talking about?
Sarah Palin is pulling together a similar coalition, and quite possibility to include a few more factions that Reagan never won.
I watched that argument being used in the late 1970s, I was young enough then that I was troubled a little by the fact that the left desperately wanted Reagan to be the Republican nominee.
Tpaw?
The era of small government is over?
Global warming is real?
We need universal healthcare?
I don’t think he’s your guy.
*The poster that holds that record claims the post was not anti-Palin, but we are awarding a temporary first until someone goes off at #4.
LLS
Please add me to your list.
Uh, I'd say the record is at post #1 where a few months ago it was written, "FUSP".
I'd say that was pretty anti-Palin!
Neo-Conservatives are big government conservatives. They want to better manage the welfare state, not dissasseble it. I think they are probably pretty close to the term Rockefeller Republican that was used in the 1960s.
Few of them would look with kindness on the Barry Goldwater candidacy of 1964. They now have adopted Reagan.
The term neo-conservative was coined by Irving Kristol who was Williams father. The founders were famously described as “Liberals who had been mugged by reality”. While not opposed to a lot of the basic liberal social policy of the times (late 1960s) they were very opposed to the lack-luster support for the Cold War and tacit support for communism that the Democrats were just starting to embrace with national politicians like McCarthy, McGovern, and others of that ilk.
They therefore left the Liberal establishment and became neo-conservatives. Many made more-or-less common cause with William Buckley at that time. Buckley had created the post-war conservatism by rejecting from the movement those older conservatives who supported isolationism, as well as those he considered too rabid (like John Birch Society) and all those considered anti-semitic.
Given that many of the founders of Neo-conservatism were Jewish, they were already welcome in this newer group. The three pillars of Buckley’s conservatism were: strong anti-communist policy, including strong active defense, free market economics and support for traditional social mores. For instance in 1964 Buckley opposed the Civil Rights act, for reasons similar to those Rand Paul recently tried to explain.
The neos always were even more focused on the anti-communism and military part, supportives in a general way of the free markets part, and downplayed the social conservative part.
The focus on Anti-Communism was transferred by the neo-cons, led by Kristol, to a focus on anti-Islamic terrorism before and after 9/11. George Bush’ top advisors included notable neo-cons Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams.
Because so many of the prominent neo-cons are Jews it has been used, at times, as a polite code-word for “Jewish Influence”. I don’t use it in this way, because there are many non-Jewish neo-cons, and the majority of Jews are not neo-cons.
Neo-con, to me is a pretty clear and accurate description of one variation of conservatism that is active today. The others would be “paleo-conservatism” (throwback to the pre-WW2 era, which would include people like Pat Buchanan, Taki, and even Ron Paul. Social conservatism and libertarianism (which overlaps with the Paleos a bit) are the other two.
Pat Buchanan has spent much of his political career arguing with and belittling the neo-cons. He opposed the Iraq war as unnecessary (but supported Bush once it had begun.) Kristol, Perle et al. were the main architects of the war.
Buchanans autobiography is titled “Right from the Begining”, itself a dig at the neos.
In general I consider most of FR to be neocon oriented. There was overwhelmig support for Iraq here. There is a view that Islam is the biggest threat to the world.
JimRob, our host, is not a fan of the Paleo’s much and doesn’t allow many leading Paleo publications to be posted from here. The main reason I see for this is: many paleos consider themselves “race realists” and will talk fankly about problems with the black minority in America in ways that make liberals and neo-cons uncomfortable.
Many Paleos also agree that the neos are overfocused on Israel at the expense of America. They view Iraq, at least in part being a scam by mostly Jewish intellectuals to convince American (through Bush) to fight Israel’s wars for her.
Many neos (non Jewish ones) are strong supporters of Israel and find this whole line of discussion rude and anti-semitic. Many neos belong to so-called Christian-Zionist denominations that strongly support Israel and America supporting Israel (Rev. Haggee being the most famous), based on their interpretation of scripture, particularly prophecy.
Hope this helps.
Of course...Irving was an interesting intellectual back in the day..I was talking about the modern use of the term.
As far as SP goes..imo, she is not running. She stepped down to test the waters, and she may still be undecided. But joining Fox instead of traveling overseas showed me that she has decided to wait.
BUT, maybe some are trying to talk her into running now because the atmosphere is so bad for Hussein.
Who knows!
Here is a site you might want to visit
Go there. Stay there. Stop darkening this forum with your presence. You are a Palin hater and you are the enemy.
So Tim Pawlenty is the choice of the “paleo” crowd?
Yeah, pobably not. The "era of small government is over" quote maybe out of context. The thing is, it's true! Where is small government? If he has bought into the full AGW Cap and trade that's a show stopper for me.
I'm not sure how we fix healthcare. I am one of those people who think it's broken. Obama made a bad system worse. Perhaps it was designed to do that to force us to true British style sooner?
I have not seen any really compelling answers for a true free-market healthcare reform.
As Medicare and Medicaid are two of the programs bankrupting the USA something needs to be done. Pawlenty saying he's for universal healthcare might not be that bad.
What does Palin say? She's good at throwing twitter-darts, but I've not seen any proposal from her.
I think she did a great job on the Alask Oil Commission. But I don't know what she thinks about anything.
For all I know she may agree with Pawlenty in practice (like Bush did) but just being more coy about it.
But yes, I am still looking.
I saw after I posted, on another thread, that the quote was taking out of context by the star tribune. The original article is not available (aug 16, 2006) but I can believe that.
Here is Sarah’s take on healthcare (so far):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
She will need to flesh out her positions as she runs (if she runs).
It will be up to us to decide if she means what she says, as you said.
There is a link to the tpaw thread earlier in this thread.
“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.”
How so?
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.