When will Sarah Palin Announce? (I think I may Actually Know)

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.

>> Cain seemed sharp enough. Perhaps he can emerge, overtake Bachmann? She’s unfortunately not doing so hot. Santorum I don’t love but he looks good compared to Mick Pomney. He’s getting high marks as well for the debate. He has gotten almost no traction at all. If Perry does drop off that would hopefully cause some other alternative to Romney to move up. <<

It's slim pickings for sure, especially give the number of decent conservatives who didn't run (Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, John Bolton, etc.) or dropped out (Pawlenty, McCotter, etc.) Of the second tier candidates, I still rank Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain above Mick Pomney. Nobody seems to have any momentum at this point. Of course Huckabee was polling about 2% in fall 2007 against Rudy McRomney, and he went on to win the Iowa caucus in January, so who knows?

Cain was a long-shot to begin with and after Gingrinch he had the most problems early in his campaign, and it seemed for a while he wouldn't last long. He does seem to be improving now. We'll see. As I've told Cain supporters, if he's still in the race and winning delegates by the time Illinois voters, I'd be happpy to vote for him, but I don't see that happening.

I like Santorum. Pre-Arlen Specter endorsement I would have considered him a great candidate for a presidential ticket (at least for veep), but after his 2006 loss I figured he was just embarrassing himself and would be DOA in a 2012 presidential campaign. Still, if he somehow won the nomination I think he'd be a far better GOP nominee and President than Mick Pomney.

Bachmann I've already covered. I think she's the best of the three candidates when it comes to conservaitve principles but I sure hope her campaign can get back on top, it's not looking good.

>> Like you, I wish that Republicans had better candidates. We should have at least a few candidates who have been a governor and either a cabinet member or a U.S. senator, including John Ashcroft, Dirk Kempthorne, Judd Gregg, and/or Ed Schaefer. Among the current candidates, Roemer is the best, since he’s a conservative who has a variety of political experience. <<

I consider Roemer a non-candidate because he's pretty much invisible (sorry Phil), but that's also due to the media ignoring him. And he's another one that used to be a RAT. But heck, I'll add Roemer to the mix and put him to the list of candidates I'd perfer over Mick Pomney just to show how much I dislike those two. If the choice on the ballot was Romney, Perry, or Roemer, I'd be for Buddy too!

One name I didn't include on the second tier list is Newt Gingrich. From what I hear (and admittedly I haven't watched most of the debates), he's done an excellent job debating and really shined at these events. I don't doubt that, Newt has always been a extremely sharp-witted guy and great at giving off-the-cuff remarks. But I'd rank him before Romney at this point. Way too much personal baggage, he was a terrible leader for the GOP when he was Speaker, and I met him in person and he's an a-hole. Can't see myself ever voting for the guy.

>>> 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. <<

I've seen the argument "Perry only panders to illegals cuz he's from a border state and he needs to win over the hispanic vote there" blah blah blah, and sorry, I'm not buying it. Part of the reason is because I live in a state (Illinois) that is nowhere near the Mexican border but they pander to illegals just as much as Perry does. New Mexico is a fellow border state that actually has a GREATER percentage of hispanics than TX, but a LOWER percentage of illegals. The Governor there is a conservative Republican of hispanic decent (Susana Martinez) and she has been very outspoken AGAINST handouts to illegals (she's even been attacked as a "bad Catholic", "traitor to her heritage", etc. because of it).

Again, I refer freepers to THIS map. You can see which states are crawling with illegals and which aren't. I believe Texas is crawling with illegals because politicians like Perry and GWB have rolled out the welcome mat for years. Look at Pennysvania and NJ on this map. There's geographically in the same area and both are on the east coat, nowhere near the Mexican border. One is filled with illegals and the other has less than 2% illegals. Why is that? I would say it's because of leadership in their states. NJ was a corrupt illegal alien loving cesspool for years. (and one could argue it still is):

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.