Posted on 09/28/2010 8:55:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The odds-on favorite to win the GOP presidential nod in 2012 is none other than Sarah Palin, according to a statistical formula developed by Villanova University Prof. Lara Brown. The professor's figuring is bad news for presumed hopefuls like Rep. Mike Pence, Sen. Jim DeMint, ex-Gov. Mitt Romney, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Gov. Haley Barbour, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Many simply joined the game too late, says Brown, author of the new book Jockeying for the American Presidency: The Political Opportunism of Aspirants, which studies every election since the founding. Others, like DeMint, are still brewing but won't be ready until 2016. As for Newt? "I don't think the GOP can forgive him," she says.
The book devises an "opportunism variable" based on the candidate's résumé to explain who wins the presidency and why. Palin has an advantage because she has been elected both mayor and governor. She also was a major party vice presidential nominee, giving her an enviable breadth of political experience. According to Brown, candidates who take risks and run for a variety of offices do well. It's even better if they lose a presidential race or two. "It takes about a run and a half to get there," Brown says. Pols "may think they can get it done in six months or a year, but [winning] will actually take them running, losing, and planting seeds," she says.
Heh, a faux-conservative complainging about somebody making alot of money. You’re that dope that went around trying to convince everyone that ‘Palin is now the enemy’. You have as much credibility as that misogynistic troll pissant.
Hey rabadash, why did you ping pissant in your post? Are you stupid enough request his views on this subject? Yes. Yes you are.
” Heh, a faux-conservative complainging about somebody making alot of money”
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
still playing the gender card, eh, MENSA. The tool of leftist scum for the last 50 years.
Remind me again about your view on women voters.
I remember Jefferson and Washington complaining about women not getting a fair shake too. Don’t you?
Your side complains when people like Michael Reagan compare Palin to RWR, and here you are comparing yourself to Jefferson and Washington. Go figure.
Because if the time comes..at the end of the day..Sarah is a politician. Not Joan of Arc. (Although the lady has avoided being burnt at the stake). Take the time to read this thread. Even her ardent supporters have forgiven her for supporting McCain (or whatever). “It was all due to politics.”
Do I think she may have a chance and would I vote for her?
Yeah...with the provision we all stay engaged. She could be our spearhead , but WE will be the ultimate game changers.
I do like the fact that the left, the MSM and the Won are so are so grumpy. Yep. She gets in their heads.
(Added to my list of things never to do...don’t discuss politics or religion at Thanksgiving....or ever, ever post on a Sarah thread at FR)
Let’s get this straight.
So, by your reasoning, recognizing the obvious amounts to cultish behaviour, but failure to recognize said obvious truth does not amount to blind prejudice.
Wow, what an intellect.
Nope. No comparison. Both were wiser than I. I just happen to believe they were wise.
for a moron with such a screen name, you should probably just butt out of any debates about cult life.
when you can’t argue, there’s always good ole abuse, LOL
but this is as bad as excessive OBSESSIVE complusive behavior.
just adding my bit :-)
LOL...add all you want..rotf.
There are two I see on just about every Palin thread...Heck I don’t go to all of them and I’m for her! Those posters are on everyone! Certainly Obsessive is right! Makes me wonder if they have a life off the net? Palin trackers for sure...and to what end? I mean I just have never seen such consistant attention at ripping up a candidate other than MSM....could they be working for them? Because they sure aren’t promoting their choice of a candidate.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
I love your post!!!
I don’t know if you are male or female, but you’ve hit the nail right on the feminist head!
The feminists absolutely hate her.
How many well known feminists have made it on their own? I challenge you to name one who hasn’t hitch their wagon to a rising MALE star!
Just look at Sally Quinn, who broke up a marriage with her affair with Ben Bradley. And she’s the doyenne of Washington, D.C.
Then...there’s Hillary! Clinton, among many others.
Have you ever seen a beautiful, liberal feminist?
Contrast them with Marsha Blackburn, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell...self made women who had a good support system, but not a boomerang to the big time...I could go on for a very long time, but you get my drift.
I know...I digressed from your point. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make mine. ;o)
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.