Sarah Palin Hints at Presidential Run

Laois_Man

Be afriad! Not only did she hint at an inauguration, she tried to give the impression that she's becoming more savvy by mentioning quantitative easing and monetizing the debt and still totally struggling to even pronounce them!

Could the Republicans really be this badly off that she'd actually win their Presidential Primary's?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/09/exp.palin.inauguration.hint.cnn?hpt=C2

hobochris

thanks, I needed a laugh.

Laois_Man

I guarantee you that when Obama is saying his prayers every night, he ends with the words....

"And please God let Sarah Palin win the 2012 Republican Presidentail Primary's"

Black Swan

Sarah Palin is the most visible, controversial, and outspoken talking head of the Republican Tea Party, doing speaking engagements constantly all over the nation for big bucks, as well as doing her thing with Fox News. Don't underestimate the power of a celebrity image on a large number of frustrated, and sometimes irrational voters, who have elected unqualified celebrities to office in the past, claiming they want new blood for Washington, DC. Just because Sarah Palin is totally unqualified, uneducated, poorly informed, narrowly biased, and a shallow thinker, does not mean that the Republicans and their Tea Party could not elect her to president in 2012. Crazier things have happened in recent years in the USA.

Lockstep

That'd be like mana from heaven for the Democrats.

As it stands, Obama would fairly easily win over Palin, despite his current unpopularity mainly as she's like kryptonite to independents. If the economy picks up before 2012, he's well set if she gets the nomination.

Polls currently have Palin [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cnn-polls-2012-romney-and-huckabee-lead-obama-palin-and-gingrich-trail_514819.html [/url] at a significant loss to Obama.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't completely rule out the chance of Palin getting the nomination, the primary system means that weird candidates can still onto the ticket, even if Independant voters wouldn't touch them. Republicans can get Tea Partiers onto the ticket, beating veteran moderates Republicans in states like Alaska, Utah and even in otherwise moderate states like Delaware and New York.

Denerick

Please God, make it true. Obama could neutralise the female pull of Palin by having a female vice president ticket.

I read her comments about quantative easing. All I can say is lol.

Can you imagine this woman hosting a G20 meeting? For God's sake, she symbolises the utter degeneracy of American politics as it is. I have faith that Americans aren't that* stupid that they would place an utter imbecile in office. Even Bush wasn't as ridiculously incompetant.

*Though one should never underestimate the American's ability to be the authors of their own destruction.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mathepac

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

... Just because Sarah Palin is totally unqualified, uneducated, poorly informed, narrowly biased, and a shallow thinker, does not mean that the Republicans and their Tea Party could not elect her ...

OK but to balance all that, on the negative side she's a hockey mom and doesn't know where or what Russia is.

The Saint

Man I'd love to see the presidential debates if she were to get the nomination. :pac:

loldog

Well I hope she runs as an independent, so she splits the conservative vote.

.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Geeeeeeeez, this poll showed Palin only 5 points behind the leader? Given that most polls have a confidence interval of roughly 3 percent, the difference between Christie and Palin at this point could be insignificant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davyjose

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Geeeeeeeez, this poll showed Palin only 5 points behind the leader? Given that most polls have a confidence interval of roughly 3 percent, the difference between Christie and Palin at this point could be insignificant.

Where was Obama in 2006? I would read very little into these polls. What would worry me more is the tide of Americans heading further and further to the right, as the American economy sinks. Two years from now, she could be viewed as some kind of saviour!!!

I think there's a strong chance she'll be the next president of the US. Unless the economy picks up dramatically, it won't be Obama, anyway.

Lirange

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Geeeeeeeez, this poll showed Palin only 5 points behind the leader? Given that most polls have a confidence interval of roughly 3 percent, the difference between Christie and Palin at this point could be insignificant.

Christie is unlikely to run. Even if he did his popularity is heavily weighted to a specific region. Romney and Palin would likely be stronger in more regions come the early primary season. Romney is only weak in the South and Palin is only weak on the East Coast. Christie could grow his name and popularity beyond the East Coast but history shows that is a tough challenge for "Yankee Republicans" recently. Romney has the advantage of ties to New England, the Midwest, and the Mountain West. None of them would be particularly strong in California which will probably break for Romney among the three.

Black Swan

davyjose wrote: »

Where was Obama in 2006?

Excellent point indeed! Most voters had never heard of him.

Denerick

davyjose wrote: »

I think there's a strong chance she'll be the next president of the US. Unless the economy picks up dramatically, it won't be Obama, anyway.

Obama has a very good chance to win the next election. Despite suffering the greatest depression in 70 years he is still one of the most popular politicians in the country and his approval rating is better than this stage in either Reagan's or Clinton's Presidencies. Don't let the nutters confuse you, the tea partiers don't speak on behalf of Americans. Their victory was no landslide, they won back many of the naturally Republican seats that Democrats rode in on Mr. Obama's coattails. Turnout was tiny amongst the Democratic core voters - blacks, the young and Hispanics. Furthermore the tea partiers managed to throw away immensely winable seats in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware. This was no unprecedented landslide, when you really look at the figures and try to project what results will be in 2012, its almost a modest reminder to Obama that while 2012 will be close, he can easily win it if he plays it smart. If Palin is nominated, expect an Obama victory unprecedented in scale, size, scope and drama.

davyjose

Denerick wrote: »

Obama has a very good chance to win the next election. Despite suffering the greatest depression in 70 years he is still one of the most popular politicians in the country and his approval rating is better than this stage in either Reagan's or Clinton's Presidencies. Don't let the nutters confuse you, the tea partiers don't speak on behalf of Americans. Their victory was no landslide, they won back many of the naturally Republican seats that Democrats rode in on Mr. Obama's coattails. Turnout was tiny amongst the Democratic core voters - blacks, the young and Hispanics. Furthermore the tea partiers managed to throw away immensely winable seats in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware. This was no unprecedented landslide, when you really look at the figures and try to project what results will be in 2012, its almost a modest reminder to Obama that while 2012 will be close, he can easily win it if he plays it smart. If Palin is nominated, expect an Obama victory unprecedented in scale, size, scope and drama.

I hope you're right. Comforting post, either way

Black Swan

Denerick wrote: »

If Palin is nominated, expect an Obama victory unprecedented in scale, size, scope and drama.

Perhaps you overestimate the intelligence of a large number of dissatisfied and an uninformed American voters? If an incompetent GW Bush can win reelection in 2004 after starting two pointless and expensive wars on false pretexts, and with a flat economy after a Clinton growth economy, a totally incompetent and multiple winking celebrity like Sarah Palin spouting meaningless, repetitious, and platotudinous political rhetoric can win with a block of impatient, disillusioned, Party of No, Tea Party, and Independent voters naively swallowing Carl Rove-like marketing spin (while a large number of Democrats opt out and stay at home rather than vote).

The 2010 mid-terms set the stage, the Party of No will continue to stall, block, or repeal any attempts at economic reform, while the Tea Party will make a lot of noise, picketing the White House in increasing numbers, all with the purpose of discrediting Obama and replacing him in 2012.

Even if Obama could walk on water, while turning it into wine, the GOP Party of No and the Republican Tea Party will make him carry the cross of the Great Recession to where a celebrity cartoon character like Mini Mouse could defeat him in 2012.

Denerick

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Perhaps you overestimate the intelligence of a large number of dissatisfied and an uninformed American voters? If an incompetent GW Bush can win reelection in 2004 after starting two pointless and expensive wars on false pretexts, and with a flat economy after a Clinton growth economy, a totally incompetent and multiple winking celebrity like Sarah Palin spouting meaningless, repetitious, and platotudinous political rhetoric can win with a block of impatient, disillusioned, Party of No, Tea Party, and Independent voters naively swallowing Carl Rove-like marketing spin (while a large number of Democrats opt out and stay at home rather than vote).

You lose sight of something. Democrats nominated a ridiculous bore in 2000 and he still won the popular vote. Democrats nominated a ridiculous twat in 2004 and only lost Ohio by under 100,000 votes. I like to think that while Americans certainly can be stupid, they're not stupid all of the time.

Maybe I've watched too much of the West Wing. When President Bartlett sought re-election he faced up to his illiterate imbecile of a Republican opponent in a debate and kicked his ass. Please God, allow the Republicans to deliver Sarah palin on a big plate as she struggles to get her tongue around words like 'quantitative easing'. I'd also love for her to accidently call NAFTA, NAMBLA.

The 2010 mid-terms set the stage, the Party of No will continue to stall, block, or repeal any attempts at economic reform, while the Tea Party will make a lot of noise, picketing the White House in increasing numbers, all with the purpose of discrediting Obama and replacing him in 2012.

Ideological conservatism has consistently failed among the electorate, I don't see why this second chance will appeal to the voters in 2012. Most Americans are moderate, they envisage a sort of medium tax, Switzerland type nation. They want some entitlements, good schools, nice big national parks... etc. They just don't like paying the taxes necessary for them. They do not have time for Libertarians who want to bulldoze the public education system and privatise national parks... There are certain battles that American conservatives simply cannot win.

Oh, and if the Republicans try to mess with social security, expect the Democrats to win over a LOT of senior citizen voters. Now that would be devastating.

Even if Obama could walk on water, while turning it into wine, the GOP Party of No and the Republican Tea Party will make him carry the cross of the Great Recession to where a celebrity cartoon character like Mini Mouse could defeat him in 2012.

Obama needs to make this his Roosevelt moment. he needs to grow a pair of balls. He needs to point out that his opponents are not only idiots, they are dangerous as well. He needs to prove to the world that he can and will be the world changing President he promised to be in 2008.

Black Swan

Denerick wrote: »

Oh, and if the Republicans try to mess with social security, expect the Democrats to win over a LOT of senior citizen voters. Now that would be devastating.

The Obama administration is already losing seniors by not allowing COLAs for Social Security during 2009 and 2010, and now proposing no COLAs for 2011 and 2012. His planning committee is also proposing that retirement be made older too, which will be as popular for senior voters nearing retirement as proposing that they ride on the last flight of the Hindenburg.

Denerick wrote: »

Obama needs to make this his Roosevelt moment.

Or his JFK moment, when he appealed to the people with his excellent command of the language and reason... Oh wait... didn't something happen to JFK shortly after? (Sorry, wrong forum ).

charlemont

she's a loon

southsiderosie

Lirange wrote: »

Christie is unlikely to run. Even if he did his popularity is heavily weighted to a specific region. Romney and Palin would likely be stronger in more regions come the early primary season. Romney is only weak in the South and Palin is only weak on the East Coast. Christie could grow his name and popularity beyond the East Coast but history shows that is a tough challenge for "Yankee Republicans" recently. Romney has the advantage of ties to New England, the Midwest, and the Mountain West. None of them would be particularly strong in California which will probably break for Romney among the three.

Romney has disowned his ties to New England in a doomed effort to woo the Southern base of the party. People in Utah like him, but that state would go red anyway, and if he puts Palin on the ticket, he will lose independents. Palin is generally weak everywhere outside of the South, but more importantly, 1) independent voters HATE her, and 2) and state that would actually vote for her is one that Obama wouldn't win anyway.

I think the most important thing to look at for a general election is who would beat Obama in Ohio, Florida and/or Pennsylvania? Those plus one or two more midsized states are really what matter here, not California Texas or New England.

Lirange

southsiderosie wrote: »

Romney has disowned his ties to New England in a doomed effort to woo the Southern base of the party. People in Utah like him, but that state would go red anyway, and if he puts Palin on the ticket, he will lose independents. Palin is generally weak everywhere outside of the South, but more importantly, 1) independent voters HATE her, and 2) and state that would actually vote for her is one that Obama wouldn't win anyway.

I think the most important thing to look at for a general election is who would beat Obama in Ohio, Florida and/or Pennsylvania? Those plus one or two more midsized states are really what matter here, not California Texas or New England.

You have to do well in the early primary states to even make it to the general election. Romney is in a position to trounce any opponents in the important New Hampshire primary. He continues to poll very well among New England Republicans. Palin is poised to do well in Iowa. She's not just strong in the south, in fact she is more popular among Republicans in the midwest. If you don't do well in at least one of these two states you're candidacy is usually over.

This seems to suggest what some in this thread have been speculating. That she has a genuine chance to win the GOP nomination but a very slim chance at being elected President.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Excellent point indeed! Most voters had never heard of him.

The GOP is not the DNC. The Republican Party and it's voters favour politicians with established names or credentials. McCain, Reagan, Dole, etc all had to run in the primaries more than once before their nomination breakthrough. Then you have George Bush Sr. and Nixon who were Presidents in waiting as long time Veeps and were instantly the next most famous face of their party when their predecessor stepped down. They were all seasoned politicians with loads of national exposure. The Democratic Party and it's voters are a different beast altogether. Bill Clinton was a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas when he ran and was seen as dark horse before the primaries. Jimmy Carter also was not rated as a likely contender prior to 1976 as he was running against much higher profile opponents.

Anonymous1987

EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice the link in the post above.

Came across this poll regarding Palin. The favourable support for Palin is shockingly high, although falling. I guess this relates to Palin as a figurehead of the Tea Party and not a presidential candidate though.



It's also pretty puzzling the favourable view she had at one point from Democrats, almost one in four in August 09 and also Independents



I still think when it comes to actually considering her as a presidential candidate they will come to their senses... I hope.

southsiderosie

Lirange wrote: »

You have to do well in the early primary states to even make it to the general election. Romney is in a position to trounce any opponents in the important New Hampshire primary. He continues to poll very well among New England Republicans. Palin is poised to do well in Iowa. She's not just strong in the south, in fact she is more popular among Republicans in the midwest. If you don't do well in at least one of these two states you're candidacy is usually over.

Iowa and NH are fetishized by the national media, but they do not necessarily determine the final outcomes, especially when there is a wide field of candidates. McCain won NH in 2000 and Hillary Clinton won it in 2008, and neither of them got the nomination. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but ended up getting nomination and winning the general election.

Palin would probably win in South Carolina, and considering his ties to Michigan, Romney didn't do well there at all. It doesn't help Romney to poll well among NE Republicans if he can't win in some of the bigger states. He will not win in big northeastern states in the general election.

If Romney can swamp Palin for Super Tuesday, he may take all of the political oxygen. He will definitely do well with big donors. But if Palin can get the same kind of grassroots shoe leather and small donor support that Obama got in 2008, then she just might steal the primaries and consign the Republicans to four more years out of the White House, as I refuse to believe that she can win a national election. Nobody can win these days without the support of independents, and she does not poll well with them at all.

However, two years is an eternity in American politics, so it is still anyone's guess.

Lirange wrote: »

The GOP is not the DNC. The Republican Party and it's voters favour politicians with established names or credentials. McCain, Reagan, Dole, etc all had to run in the primaries more than once before their nomination breakthrough. Then you have George Bush Sr. and Nixon who were Presidents in waiting as long time Veeps and were instantly the next most famous face of their party when their predecessor stepped down. They were all seasoned politicians with loads of national exposure. The Democratic Party and it's voters are a different beast altogether. Bill as Clinton was a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas when he ran and was seen as dark horse before the primaries. Jimmy Carter also was not rated as a likely contender prior to 1976 as he was running against much higher profile opponents.

I agree that the GOP are generally more disciplined historically, but that has really unraveled. Dubya jumped the queue so to speak in 2000, although he locked up all of the big donors early. Dole got the nod in 1996 a favor to an elder statesman who didn't have a chance in hell of winning.

As for the Dems, Clinton got to run in 1992 because Bush was generally popular at the time and nobody wanted to run against him. And he got a big boost from Pat Buchannan's ****-stirring.

I think that differences in media and campaign finance dynamics is making the old 'wait your turn' system obsolete, which is why the GOP establishment is beside themselves. If the rank-and-file GOP still followed orders on the nominating process for major candidates, Republicans would have control of the Senate today.

tommyboyle

Christie is swearing up and down that he does not want to be president. A recent poll amoung the tea partyers have only 40% feeling she is qualified to be president. Her best shot is to endorse someone. She is, believe it or not, very intelligent. Romney will have problems because he is a mormen. For some reason there seems to be a very strong predjudice against that religion. Im a registered democrat so I dont care who runs but it should be interesting. Especially for Romney because he actually looks like a good conservative but the bible belt will have the biggest problem with his faith

Clawdeeus

The Republican top brass consider her unelectable, many have come out and said so, including former president Bush. Further, she has no appeal for large swathes of the population that will vote for ANYTHING else.

Anything can happen though, hypothetically in a debate I think she would do so incredibly badly it will reflect poorely on her opponents, and even work to her advantage; Im serious there.

I like to think John McCain cries himself to sleep over creating this monster. I actually quite liked the guy...

Black Swan

Clawdeeus wrote: »

The Republican top brass consider her unelectable, many have come out and said so, including former president Bush.

Sarah Palin would not want to be recommended by GW Bush, nor did John McCain in 2008, given that when Bush left office, the nation was in the greatest recession since the Great Depression, housing foreclosures hit record highs, unemployment was double digit, the federal deficit hit an historic high, and two pointless wars had been raging for several years costing taxpayers billions per month.

Sarah Palin's Alaska hosted by TLC launches shortly, which she co-directs, that will cosmetically transform her image (and her brood) into the All American Family that adventures in the nation's outback, shoots bears, and makes muffins over campfires. With those qualifications, how can Americans not vote for her? :rolleyes:

After this Palin series, TLC (The Leaning Channel) should be renamed to TPC (P for politics).

Lirange

southsiderosie wrote: »

Iowa and NH are fetishized by the national media, but they do not necessarily determine the final outcomes, especially when there is a wide field of candidates. McCain won NH in 2000 and Hillary Clinton won it in 2008, and neither of them got the nomination. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but ended up getting nomination and winning the general election.

New Hampshire is the primary that propelled Clinton to the nomination. He came very close to defeating favoured Massachussets Senator Tsongas and it was heralded as a victory in the media after he got trounced in Iowa. It is where he made his "comeback kid" speech. I stated that you had to do well in at least one of these two states in order to stay in the picture and clearly Clinton did. I never stated doing well in either or both guaranteed anything.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Palin would probably win in South Carolina, and considering his ties to Michigan, Romney didn't do well there at all. It doesn't help Romney to poll well among NE Republicans if he can't win in some of the bigger states. He will not win in big northeastern states in the general election.

If Romney does well in New Hampshire as expected he should remain in the picture until Super Tuesday where he stands to fare very well in the bigger states. He is a strong contender in virtually every primary outside the south. No Republican is going to do well in the big NE states in the general election. They won't even likely bother and their "path to victory" will focus on perceived battleground states. MR will be the candidate that the GOP apparatus will favour most.

southsiderosie wrote: »

If Romney can swamp Palin for Super Tuesday, he may take all of the political oxygen. He will definitely do well with big donors. But if Palin can get the same kind of grassroots shoe leather and small donor support that Obama got in 2008, then she just might steal the primaries and consign the Republicans to four more years out of the White House, as I refuse to believe that she can win a national election. Nobody can win these days without the support of independents, and she does not poll well with them at all.

This is why I agree that the Republican voters would be handing a gift to the Democrats by nominating Palin. I'm not sure I could stomach a circus like GE with her though. NH allows independents to vote in their primaries but most like Iowa's are closed primaries only open to registered voters of the respective parties. Palin's biggest strength is that her base in the GOP is very energised and she appeals to many of the voters that tend to turn out in the primaries.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree that the GOP are generally more disciplined historically, but that has really unraveled. Dubya jumped the queue so to speak in 2000, although he locked up all of the big donors early. Dole got the nod in 1996 a favor to an elder statesman who didn't have a chance in hell of winning.

Their tendency of conforming to conventions hasn't unraveled. George W. Bush was the favoured candidate from the outset in the primaries. His only potential competition was Phil Gramm, a fellow Texan who he easily shunted aside with his state and party connections. He was the most prominent Governor in the USA and son of a recent president. It reminds me of the film A Distinguished Gentleman with Eddie Murphy, "vote for Thomas Jefferson Johnson. The name that you know!" There's little doubt that many GOP strategists would love nothing more than to emulate the Obama factor but they have one slight problem and that's the Republican voters. Christie hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. He's become somewhat propped up as a novelty as this Republican that actually won a governorship in the enemy's den. But he had the advantage of taking on an exceptionally unpopular incumbent in Corzine. He would likely struggle against an untainted Dem opponent in the next election. Also, as history hath shown North easterners electing Republicans to local office and to federal office is a different kettle of fish. Christie would not win his home state in a GE for that reason. But let's also consider the hard move to the right that would be necessary for him to be competitive nationally. It wouldn't really go down well with the NYC and Philly suburbanites that make up most of the NJ electorate. He would also be too hard of a sell to the Bible Belt swathes of the South and Midwest. He just doesn't have a tenable position. Rubio's prospects are better. But he's not established which is a big weakness in the GOP. The party also has yet to convince me on a national level that they would back a minority.

southsiderosie wrote: »

As for the Dems, Clinton got to run in 1992 because Bush was generally popular at the time and nobody wanted to run against him. And he got a big boost from Pat Buchannan's ****-stirring.

Actually quite the contrary. The 1992 Democratic presidential primary was one of the most crowded of all time in terms of realistic competition. Four other candidates besides Clinton won state primaries and three of them (Tsongas, Brown, and Harkin) each won at least three states before Super Tuesday! It was the crowded field that actually helped Clinton and divided up the votes in such a manner that was advantageous to his campaign.

Something similar happened in the 1992 general election for POTUS. I still remember it vividly. I was 17 at the time and was just getting interested in politics. Bush Sr. was not popular in 1992. Even in his own party. "Read my lips. No new taxes." This was the year of the Ross Perot populist movement which pulled independents and voters from both parties but mostly from the GOP. This helped pave the way for Clinton. It was the closest the USA has come to breaking up the two party monopoly in the last half century.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think that differences in media and campaign finance dynamics is making the old 'wait your turn' system obsolete, which is why the GOP establishment is beside themselves. If the rank-and-file GOP still followed orders on the nominating process for major candidates, Republicans would have control of the Senate today.

I agree to an extent. They're being pushed ever rightward it seems by social conservatism. The last vestiges of the Goldwater movement being pummeled into submission. But even Sarah Palin the Tea Party figurehead is very established nationally. Her fame (or infamy) is a big advantage. History has demonstrated that it is tough for new faces to gain enough traction with Republican voters.

tommyboyle

Back in 2000 I was still a republican. Back then an American had the option of being a moderate. Sadly that time has past. I am thirty years old and finally switched parties. There is no such thing as a moderate republican who has any chance of election outside his congressional district. Even the Senate, a state wide election (sorry for the explanation but maybe at least one person may have needed it), a moderate has little to no chance. The democrats arent alot better but in this party I can agree with politicians. We need a third party. Will never happen on a grand scale. Whats sad is the dems are getting blamed because they could not fix the rebs mistakes fast enough. Obama has been there three years. What do people expect. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said 'The greatest arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. What did my countrymen expect in three years. Sorry to invade your website but I think the best way to see yourself is through the eyes of others. And since Im two generations removed by my mom's and dad's family from ireland, Id figured I would start with you guys

FatherTed

I have to agree with you Tommy. I mildly supported the Repubs in the mid 90's but the whole witch hunt of Clinton and the impeachment was a joke. The whole party has really gone whacko and has gotten worse since. Look at John McCain. He was once a noble politician but even he turned bitter in order to get the republican nomination. Obama must be delighted at the prospect of facing Palin in the election again.

tommyboyle

Father, I agree with you 100%. The change in McCain's politics was most disheartening. In 2000 I thought he would make the finest leader available. Unfortunatly the south still saw a papist and became scared of his moderate leanings. In 08 he changed everything and became the poster boy for the Rush Limbaugh fan club. His catholicism was also neutralised by his competition being a mormon. We was a true American hero, down to his very core. How sad. I would have loved for the 2000 version to be the face of my nation.
Beware of Sara Palin. She puts on the woman next door facade but she is truly brilliant. Do not underestimate her and her followers. Recently republicans were taking shots at her; all anonymous. They are afraid of her. She is doing exactly what she needs to do to have people imagine her as people just like her.

Black Swan

tommyboyle wrote: »

Beware of Sara Palin. She puts on the woman next door facade but she is truly brilliant. Do not underestimate her and her followers. Recently republicans were taking shots at her; all anonymous. They are afraid of her. She is doing exactly what she needs to do to have people imagine her as people just like her.

Not sure that "brilliant" defines Sarah Palin based upon Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere, quitting governor half-way through her first term, or her campaign interviews, but both the GOP and Democrats are clearly underestimating her chances for 2012 given the sad economic condition of the nation. She has established "celebrity" status, which, if I recall from the 2008 elections, was a GOP criticism of Obama during his campaign.

"Celebrity" status does not qualify someone for office, but it has worked in the past to get unqualified persons into governorships; e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura.

And Sarah Palin clearly has celebrity status, especially after her successful launch of "Sarah Palin's Alaska:"

"Alaska" averaged 4.96 million total viewers and a 3.5 household rating, becoming the top debut in network history in both, surpassing the 2003 launch of "What Not to Wear."

Among adults 25-54, the show drew 1.8 million viewers, including 1.1 million women, while 1.6 million adults 18-49 tuned in.

"Alaska" is not the most-watched program in TLC history, however. During the height of their tabloid-fueled breakup a year and a half ago, "Jon and Kate Plus 8" drew more than 10.6 million viewers.

Source: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Cable_20/Sockeroo-debut-for-Sarah-Palin-s-Alaska-.asp

Denerick

5 million / 300 million = A neglibable share of the population.

Sarah Palin is a crude literary manifestation of all that is currently wrong with America, if the modern world were but one great play. It is the duty of the American people to protect their supremacy for the next century - a Palin Presidency would cement the idiocracy we are all worrying about. Frankly if she gets elected we'd better start learning how to speak Indian and Chinese.

Black Swan

The Sarah Palin "celebrity" 2012 presidential machine marches on and on. She is now coining words for the New Oxford American Dictionary. Language errors are now transformed into Palin poetry.

Sarah Palin has officially changed the modern lexicon, one tweet at a time. While one might expect the New Oxford American Dictionary to refudiate the former Alaska governor’s favorite verb, today they embraced it, announcing “refudiate” as the official 2010 word of the year.

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/congratulations-sarah-palin-refudiate-named-word-of-the-year.html

While on the home front, Bristol Palin has made it into the “Dancing with the Stars” finale, surviving last night’s last regular-season elimination. Some claim that:

"She (Bristol Palin) is evidently clearly inferior to the other contestants, but Sarah Palin fans keep on voting her in not because of her greater talent but as a tribute to her <derogatory word> mom. Evidently, they're making a political point."

Source: http://www.huliq.com/10473/bristol-over-brandy-tea-party-conspiracy-dancing-stars

tommyboyle

Brilliant may not be the perfect word for Pali but she knows exactly whats she's doing. If by some curse of satan she holds office could you make room for my family. Seriously. I dont see her getting elected or even not really running. She has a pretty sweet deal going on and could make tons of cash as lobbyist with the pull she has. Obama will win another turn thanks especially to the tea partyers. She will split the rebublican party. There are those rebs who beleive the nation needs a leader who cares only for jesus, guns, and hating homosexuals. That is all she is. What America has to do is stop being cowboys of the world. Keep our armed forces its current size and mind our own business. Which includes our nato alliances. If some nation attacks the emerald isle, I am all for dropping the American hammer on anyone dumn enough to try that. Especially a nation where 25% of its citizens identifies themselves as irish american. Aside from that bring our boys home. I am an american air force vet and served proudly. Fighting for a just cause is ideal not so some fatcats can get richer. Overexpansion killed the Roman Empire. We are no where near that but we must protect our borders and stand with our friends

metrovelvet

tommyboyle wrote: »

Brilliant may not be the perfect word for Pali but she knows exactly whats she's doing. If by some curse of satan she holds office could you make room for my family. Seriously. I dont see her getting elected or even not really running. She has a pretty sweet deal going on and could make tons of cash as lobbyist with the pull she has. Obama will win another turn thanks especially to the tea partyers. She will split the rebublican party. There are those rebs who beleive the nation needs a leader who cares only for jesus, guns, and hating homosexuals. That is all she is. What America has to do is stop being cowboys of the world. Keep our armed forces its current size and mind our own business. Which includes our nato alliances. If some nation attacks the emerald isle, I am all for dropping the American hammer on anyone dumn enough to try that. Especially a nation where 25% of its citizens identifies themselves as irish american. Aside from that bring our boys home. I am an american air force vet and served proudly. Fighting for a just cause is ideal not so some fatcats can get richer. Overexpansion killed the Roman Empire. We are no where near that but we must protect our borders and stand with our friends

I think we should back completely to isolationist policy. Pull out of everywhere and let the world fend for themselves, and that includes all assistance, even things like Haiti and Tsunamis. We are always the first in to help and all we get is the finger for it.

And close the borders.

tommyboyle

I almost completely agree with you. Isolationism along with making american made goods cheaper to buy. Encourage the american consumer to buy american goods. National disasters around the world I am all for helping out. Not gov't money but red cross donations. The use of american rescue teams is great too. But I am all for Leaving the ttroops home to spend time with their families and train for when the US needs defending.. I am always for standing by our alliances. That should not change anything though. Any time the european union is under a grave threat we probably are also.

EastTexas

This woman will never ever hold public office again.
Aside of her obvious lack of qualification, there isn’t enough money in it for her.
She’s already making more than the president
Nothing but a media stunt, if she actually did run with no chance to make it past the primaries.
She is a TeeVee personality. lol

Liberals are obsessed with her, hence she’s catnip laced with crack for the partisan pundits out for ratings on both sides.
It’s really nothing more but a political sideshow.

Lirange

Liberals aren't the ones buying her books, attending her rallies, or watching her TV programmes. She will run. Her stops in Iowa make it abundantly clear. I doubt she can win a general election. She is very popular in the Republican Party and is capable of winning early primaries in Iowa and South Carolina.

Rodin

I have never seen such a poor candidate in world politics

Denerick

Rodin wrote: »

I have never seen such a poor candidate in world politics

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. Mary Coughlan is Tanaiste and Jacky Healy Rae is one of the two shaky pillars propping up this government.

Wisco

I really think Palin is too polarizing a figure to be elected. I know I'd go out of my way to vote against here, and I classify myself as pretty moderate- but there's something about her that makes me crazy. Having said that, like some of you others have said, it's a shame there's no moderate party any more. We can't all be put in little boxes like Fox News would like to do to us. I also think Republicans may be in a weaker position after the next two years- I know they think they can ride in and rescue things, but 2 years is not a lot of time to do much, for either party.
Should be interesting to see what's happening in 2 years. I'll have to re-register for an absentee ballot next time I'm Stateside....

Jonny7

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think we should back completely to isolationist policy. Pull out of everywhere and let the world fend for themselves, and that includes all assistance, even things like Haiti and Tsunamis. We are always the first in to help and all we get is the finger for it.

And close the borders.

Rather a strange little statement there

I think countries in the world strive to help each other regardless of politics whenever a natural disaster strikes - not withdraw aid and 'sulk' because they don't get thanked enough for it

Secondly - the superpowers US and China (Russia, etc) need to stop playing God with smaller countries and interfering so much - we've seen all the spinoffs from the Cold War meddling, Bin Laden, instable states, dictators, coups - its all nasty and generally causes headaches later on.

Close the borders? if you are American, I hence pesume you were originally native american with that attitude

EastTexas

Lirange wrote: »

Liberals aren't the ones buying her books, attending her rallies, or watching her TV programmes. She will run. Her stops in Iowa make it abundantly clear. I doubt she can win a general election. She is very popular in the Republican Party and is capable of winning early primaries in Iowa and South Carolina.

From what I have read she purchases large numbers of her own book
The liberal media has provided her with a huge platform, much bigger then the right.
Obsessively hanging on her every word, publishing her every tweet.
Tweet lol
If you go to Huffington Post (liberal ground zero) she has her own page, articles about the minutest thing she does or says accumulate 1000nds of hateful comments within a few short hrs.
Given the focus and reaction to her by the left, she keeps putting out the bait of her possible run.
You gotto remember exposure in the US is a license to print money.
Without that, she may have had to get a real job.

The Republicans don’t take her anywhere near as serious, but use her as a very affective distraction tool which in the end is all she really is.

Lirange

You seem to be downplaying her appeal in the Republican Party. We'll just have to wait until early 2012 to see how well your assessments hold up.

Memnoch

EastTexas - You're not seriously ignoring the pull that Palin seems to have with the republican base, are you? Just take a look at the elections just gone by and the effect she had on the fortunes of the candidates she backed as well as the crowds she seems to pull at fund raisers etc.

If the "liberal media" (there's no such thing by the way, at least not as I gather you perceive it) is giving her any attention it is because of the influence she seems to wield with republican voters.

The fact that she is a crazy, ignorant, incompetent narcissist and completely unelectable to the vast majority of the "moderate/mainstream" electorate does not change the above.

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

EastTexas - You're not seriously ignoring the pull that Palin seems to have with the republican base, are you? Just take a look at the elections just gone by and the effect she had on the fortunes of the candidates she backed as well as the crowds she seems to pull at fund raisers etc.

If the "liberal media" (there's no such thing by the way, at least not as I gather you perceive it) is giving her any attention it is because of the influence she seems to wield with republican voters.

The fact that she is a crazy, ignorant, incompetent narcissist and completely unelectable to the vast majority of the "moderate/mainstream" electorate does not change the above.

As an ex politician amongst voters, what pull?
TV personality mouthpiece in certain republican circles, yes.
Imagine propping up a failed divisive unelectable candidate.
A republican nightmare granting an easy stay for Obama.
Do you really think they are gonna do that?

Think of O’Donnell, another completely unelectable candidate.
The left wing media featured her daily, obsessing on her every word, past and present just like palin.
Whilst the Republicans considered her a none starter and expected loss the moment she won the primary.

Personally, I wish Republicans would back Ron Paul.
One of the brightest minds we have in office.
I also think he could win if they solidly backed him.
Most of us are sick of the fools on both sides.

InTheTrees

Although as a democrat i'm firmly in favour of palin running I really dont see her getting through the republican primary process unscathed.