Posted on 09/21/2011 11:33:07 AM PDT by parksstp
Watching Palin, you know that when she does something, she only does it at 110% or more. And like most politicians, she doesn’t like to lose (see her 2008 night of the election – yeah, she was angry McCain wouldn’t let her speak, but I’m also sure deep down she was bitter over the fact that the American voters bought the whole “hope and changey” platitudes.) And obviously, she wants to fix that bitter taste from 2008. How she accomplishes that (runs, doesn’t run, etc) has been a matter of debate.
The biggest hinderance you hear about Palin running for POTUS is her “electability”. Polls would have you believe her unfavorable ratings will never allow her to win the GOP nomination, or if she does win it, lose the 2012 General Election.
Well, yes, polls can help determine the outlook of a situation. Take a look at the current sitting President. All signs point to him losing his base, in addition to independents, as the country spirals downward.
But we have seen one thing proven time and time again. That regardless of polls, the ideological support of each party, usually in some fashion or another, returns to their ideological candidate. Usually it is enough. Sometimes it is not (McCain).
The “electability” argument against Palin usually goes that she cannot win the election because she cannot win moderates or independents. Okay, fine, valid point. Now my contention is going to be this: Does she really have to win them to win the 2012 Election?
Some folks would scoff off at me: “Of course she does! Nobody is going to win the election if they can’t win the middle.” Oh really?
The “Moderate/Independent” label is broad and misleading. Looking at some of the CNN Map data from the 2004, 2008, and 2010 Elections, I’ve come across something interesting. These “Moderate/Independents” tend to vote for the Republican candidate in counties carried by the Republican. Shockingly, the “Moderate/Independents” also tend to vote for the Democrat in counties carried by the Democrat. Not so moderate/independent as we thought. And when you hear the media talking about how she can’t win the “Independents” they’re referring to the ones in the blue counties. Even though no Republican ever carries anywhere near a majority of independents in the blue counties, they expect Palin to accomplish this task to have legitimacy, while in all honesty, she can run just as mediocre in those areas as Bush did, provided she runs strong margins in the traditional conservative areas. Picking up 20% of “Independents” in Broward County, FL would be all she would need provided she ran as strong elsewhere in the state where she is supposed to.
Okay, sorry for the digression, back to the question of the thread. Like I said, Sarah likes to win and hates losing. Well folks, there’s one event going on right now, that if you’re a Palin supporter you better be on the phone lines making it happen.
The current bill in PA to reapportion the Electoral College votes blows the electability argument out of the water. IF it passes, based on redistricting, it’s possible that the GOP candidate could come out of PA with as many as 10 Electoral Votes. That’s the equivalent of IA and NH, without actually having to win IA and NH. It turns the Electoral Math almost decisively towards the GOP candidate.
Except for MO (given it’s closeness), there is no Red State from 2008 that is in any serious jeopardy to turn blue in 2012. MO has shown that there is usually enough conservative votes to offset StL/KC. IN and NC both appear to be heading Red this time around. VA can return to the Red column by reclaiming Loudon, Chesapeake, Suffolk, and other Bush-majorities that McCain lost. FL and OH seem to go as the economy goes. Obama did not blow McCain out in either of these states, instead McCain severly underperformed in traditionally red/conservative areas. That’s 266 Electoral votes. When you add in the potential of 10 Electoral Votes from PA, it’s game over for Obama.
In fact, it opens up viable winning scenarios for the Republican without having to win both OH and FL. For example, let’s say for whatever reason, Obama succeeds in getting “old people” scared to vote for Palin and wins FL. If she still carried OH and reclaimed the Bush States of IA, NM, CO, and NV or NH, and won at least 7 CD’s in PA, she would have 270 to win. Likewise, if she lost OH due to voter fraud, but managed to carry FL, CO, and one other state (IA, NM, NV, NH), 6-7 CD’s in PA would also get her to 270.
With the passage of this bill, the Electoral Math is realistically in her favor. Not that it wasn’t before, but this bill may be the decisive factor in her decision to run for two reasons. First, the GOP primary voters can feel assured that based on the Electoral Math probabilities, they can select the candidate they really want to without having to worry about the “electability” factor. This is the #1 argument she will need to make to capture voters from the Perry and the other conservative campaigns. Second, from an economic standpoint, her campaign can throw the kitchen sink at OH/FL immediately putting Obama on defense, then pick and choose what other blue states they will gamble for (but don’t have to win) given their status of funds.
IF this PA bill passes, look for a Palin announcement shortly thereafter. If none occurs, then she won’t be running.
Same here. I might be able to swallow a Perry over Obama next years November, or may not, no promises there. But Romney is a non-starter for me. If Romney gets it we would be better off with Obama (than him) as bad as that would be. I wont support him in any way.
And I STILL am glad McCain is not POTUS.
Speaking of supporting RINOs, in late October 2008 someone asked us to donate and volunteer for McCain 2008. I posted this 'WTF?' response:
To: Frantzie
RE “Volunteer and donate. We will hold Pres McCain’s feet to the fire.”
Like you did with Bush? And with a Democratic majority??
“Volunteer for ???? You don’t mean for McCain do you? I can’t promote him with a straight face. I may donate to a 527 that has a message I agree with but. . How can I go out and tell people: “John’s a reformer, not a Republican" ? McCain is saying "Both parties mainly my party caused this mess, but not me the independent reformer". John is NOW for cutting taxes and for drilling. But he WAS against it a few months ago then switched his positions in the middle of an election 'because of principle, not politics.' And he’s against pork, and earmarks, and deficits, except the 700B investor/bank bailout bill he voted for that because it’s the best congress would pass and we had to do something immediately”
I cannot defend mCCain. can you???
#21 posted on Friday, October 17, 2008 2:42:23 PM by sickoflibs ( Obama : spread YOUR money around with ‘tax rebates’ to those not paying taxes)
Wow....just wow. Shaking my head in disbelief. I'd take a 70% conservative Romney over a 0% conservative Obama every day of the week. McCain was a dolt, stupid to the core and a bumbling idiot. Romney is neither.
I’m 99+% sure that Mitt would be a disaster but only 70-75% sure that Perry would badly suck.
Damnit, Obama is dead in the water and the best we can get is Perry? Come on! Come on Michelle. Or come on somebody else get in the race, a trained seal could beat the hell out of this field.
Maybe I’m too hard on old George, er I mean Rick. At least we’ll keep another lib or 2 off the Supreme Court right? He won’t expand government and reengerize the rat party like Bush did, right? Right?
Do I need to be less analytical and just pretend that Perry is the quarterback of my football team?
Sorry this debate just irritated me. I’m sure sick of hearing about state’s rights this and state’s rights that. My state’s government sucks WORSE THAN THE FEDS and so do plenty of others. How about “citizen’s rights” instead?
The ironic thing is the one issue that Perry sucks the worse at (immigration) is the one issue where Romney's record is fairly decent. But I'm not a single issue and hence I'm not a Romney supporter. Go figure.
>> Damnit, Obama is dead in the water and the best we can get is Perry? Come on! <<
I know, it's frustrating the hell out of me because it seems the weaker Obama gets, the more the GOP field steps in it and looks un-presidential. It's like they're trying to lose! This is why I haven't endorsed anyone yet. It's a very weak field and I haven't seen anyone on that stage that I'm confident could put up a good fight against Hussein.
>> Come on Michelle. Or come on somebody else get in the race, a trained seal could beat the hell out of this field. <<
It not's on the radar screens on FR tonight, but locally Bachmann is taking quite a beating from Illinois conservatives and tea party supporters for her last minute cancellation of a campaign rally that was supposed to take place in Will Co. this weekend. Apparently some of her staff booked her without checking her schedule for conflicts. It looks pretty bad. I wish she could pull herself back on top, phony "conservative" Rick Perry knocked the wind out of her sails when he announced but now conservatives are wising up to the real Perry.
>> Maybe I’m too hard on old George, er I mean Rick. At least we’ll keep another lib or 2 off the Supreme Court right? He won’t expand government and reengerize the rat party like Bush did, right? Right? <<
Heh. His fans seem to be pretty quiet tonight after his lousy debate performance (saying people who are against in-state tutition for illegals are "heartless" and playing the race card by saying "people with different last names" deserve equal rights is right out of the RAT playbook... hey Rick, I'm just as vehemently against a guy named John Smith from the U.K. getting "in-state tuition" in the U.S., thank you very much). As one freeper noted, either the Perry fans are in a panic and having a meeting on how to spin his nosedive, or they're at work removing the rose-colored tint from their Perry supporter glasses.
>> Sorry this debate just irritated me. <<
Poor Buddy Roemer (freeper PhilCollin's fav) and Thad McCotter don't even get to BE in these debates. I heard McCotter dropped out tonite. Was he ever IN? It never seemed like it. Never-the-less I'd prefer an also-ran like McCotter to what the media touts as "viable" candidates.
>> I’m sure sick of hearing about state’s rights this and state’s rights that. My state’s government sucks WORSE THAN THE FEDS and so do plenty of others. How about “citizen’s rights” instead? <<
Yep, had an argument with some Perry Kristnas about that on facebook the other day. God help us if Illinois government gets any new "rights" to enact additional kinds of laws over its citizens. Lisa Madigan is probably plotting some diabolical to screw us as I type this. But as usual their response is that if I don't like my state government I should simply "MOVE!!" One wonders why they don't apply their own logic and leave the US since they're not happy with the federal government (well I guess Perry DID muse over the possibility of secession, give him credit). If I should simply pack up everything and "MOVE!" to Indiana or Wisconsin because my state government sucks monkey balls, they could simply relocate to Canada. Then they'd have a right-of-center federal government with a moderately conservative Prime Minister. As a plus, they'd get Senators appointed by politicians to cushy jobs like they've always dreamed about here in the USA. What a relief it will be when they have no say over who their Senator will be. ;-)
Of course some of here would prefer to reform and dismantle corrupt government entities, not run away like the French, but that's just me I guess.
Yes let’s move. Never mind money, job and/or family concerns. Let’s go to Texas where jobs grow on trees and if we can’t find one there maybe we can farm alpacas in Wyoming, people can make a living from that right? The “red states” are all perfect of course. It’s not like Alaska has a major problem with RINO corruption or anything or that Texas has the same in-state tution for illegals as Illinois.
Perfect reply with the Canada thing!
Hell I’m about ready to jump on the Roemer bandwagon, if he has half a brain he could have schooled the clown frontrunners Mitt and Rick. Even Gingrich is starting to look good in comparison! I’ve changed my mind, let Buddy and Thad in the debates. Let Karger in too, he’s no less a Republican than that smarmy bastard Huntsman (sadly even he sounded sharper than M and R.)
It's a constitutional republic that doesn't much care for promoting democracy, there's a "conservative" government in power (at least, the Mexicans claim PAN is "conservative"), the federal government has VERY little power to enforce ANYTHING at the state level (just read up on the chaos in Nueva Leon), there is no death penalty, the government is seriously considering legalizing drugs, their military virtually NEVER goes to war or takes any aggressive action overseas, abortion is almost entirely regulated at the state level and is for the most part illegal (except in Mexico City of course), ditto with gay marriage (again, except in Mexico City where you can probably marry your grandmother and a couple of chihuahuas for kicks), local militia and police pretty much take care of any law enforcement and "security" concerns (good luck asking them for help!), there are strict regulations and "boots on the ground" to stop illegal immigration INTO mexico, all federal officials are term limited and do not last long in government, and they have a long history of overthrowing the federal government if they don't like the way it governs.
Just change things so the Mexican Senate is appointed by state legislatures (drug lord in Chiapas buys Senate seat for 5 million pesos!) and Mexico would be damn near perfect for the "States Rights" crowd. ;-)
Right now my line in the sand is Romney. I don't trust anything he says and don't hear anything that sounds brilliant from him contrary to claims.
Perry is not enthusing me especially with his compassionate Conservative immigration amnesty positions that are popular in Texas. He sounded like Dick Armey last night.
But Obama (term 2) vs Perry ??? It's hard for me to accept a second Obama term this early. Watching them debate would be fun. The Joe Scarbouro RINOs are out to get Perry and are lining up behind Romney.
Bachmann was impressing me early on but since Perry got in her claims and promises are getting wilder and wilder making it less and less likely that primary voters will select her no matter what we want. I like her but she is violating one of my main rules.
I dont look at it that way. Romney was for Bush-Pelosi-McCain amnesty back in 2006 to 2007 and he would be for it again under similar circumstances.
On immigration Perry is pandering to his Texas voters many of whom are Hispanic. But Romney probably had three Hispanic voters in MA when he came out for amnesty and vetoed an MA Dream Act. He was for amnesty then simply to provide cheaper labor to business, as with TARP and stimulus's are all his big business priories . Romney gets no points from me on that issue.
FUMR!
Romney is wretchedly bad on "global warming" but the inquisitors in the debate failed to ask him if he would do anything about the EPA. If Romney wants the GOP nomination, he should reassure the folks about that.
Romney can go @%$# .
At least with Obama in the WH Republicans in congress can oppose his liberal proposals without helping Democrats gain back power, And his liberal failures are on public display. A termite like Romney in the WH would just make voters turn back to Democrats for ALL solutions as they did 2006,2007, 2008. FUMR.
I wish these candidates would tell us what they would actually do as POTUS and stop telling us what they would do if they were King of the USA . Candidates tell us all these great sounding things (most copied from others) they would like to do, then get in office and look for anything that they can get through congress no matter how bad it stinks.
Bush was sincerely for oil drilling, but in the end to pass something he mandated ethanol and banned manufacture of light bulbs(and got some oil drilling for it) . I want know what they WOULD really as POTUS not this endless BS.
Yep...it was suicide too....NOT murder!
Romney is a chamber of commerce illegal immigrant whore
Perry is so far gone on illegals I won’t comment.
You can have em both for 50 cents.
Here is your crap sandwich little Stevie and you better eat it all because that is all you are getting :)
I started with low expectations anyway.
” Here is your crap sandwich little Stevie and you better eat it all because that is all you are getting :) “
Little Stevie has alternatives
Little Stevie bought a house in the land down under 30 days after Obama took office.
Little Stevie will go far in life...... very far....if things get much worse : )
Last night Herman Cain said the EPA was planning to regulate dust in Jan. 2012, but I think that is an old rule from the Bush EPA in 2006. Doesn't that R after the name make you feel better? The EPA itself was the offspring of Richard Nixon, but they really did have some awful pollution in the 70s.
50 cents? I’d rather get a gumball. Used to beg my parents for them even though they weren’t all that great.
Mmm the elections for the Mexican Senate sound arcane and corrupt. Not a ton of details on suckipedia.
At least they can’t run for consecutive terms!
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.