Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Governor Palin forms a political action committee

ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662

It's called SarahPAC.  Though not a sure sign that she plans to run for President in 2012, it is generally considered a first step in that direction.  Unless some major distraction arises, I'm betting that she runs.  Let the pro-Palin vs anti-Palin bloodbath begin.

«1

Comments

  • Rikimaru_XRikimaru_X Member UncommonPosts: 11,718

    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?

    -In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
    |
    RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,296

    Excessive success and prosperity in Alaska, thats how she thinks she can succeed.

  • xxvicexxxxvicexx Member UncommonPosts: 475

    Michael Steele was just elected to head the RNC as well. 

     

     

  • WolfenprideWolfenpride Member Posts: 3,988
    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    Thats what im trying to figure out :)

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by xxvicexx


    Michael Steele was just elected to head the RNC as well. 



     

    Congratualtions Michael!  The guy's got some great lines.  I heard some of his victory speech.  I think he'll be pretty tough as well.

  • WolfenprideWolfenpride Member Posts: 3,988
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

  • EkibiogamiEkibiogami Member UncommonPosts: 2,154
    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    —Samuel Adams

  • Vato26Vato26 Member Posts: 3,930
    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    No... actually it's Bull Crap, which I think is the staple for majority of the ultra conservatives on this forum.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561

    Will be interesting to see how she does against a Huckabee or Romney if she does decide to run. I personally don't believe she can put up with an endurance test of 20+ months of campaigning and a dozen or two primary debates. She didn't even get through10 weeks of campaigning and 1 debate without failing spectacularly and ruinin' any image of being competent she might've ever had.

  • VemoiVemoi Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.

    Along with that, a government owned corp will not be allowed to fail no matter what the cost.  Anyone see the post office wants to go to 5 day delivery? Thats the way to drum up more business.

     

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by sepher


    Will be interesting to see how she does against a Huckabee or Romney if she does decide to run. I personally don't believe she can put up with an endurance test of 20+ months of campaigning and a dozen or two primary debates. She didn't even get through10 weeks of campaigning and 1 debate without failing spectacularly and ruinin' any image of being competent she might've ever had.



     

    As much as I like Huckabee and Romney, I don't see either one of them challenging Palin in 2012 should she decide to run.  They already ran once and neither one of them electrified the Republican base.  They are old news.  I don't see how they would have any chance of overcoming Palin's enormous popularity.  Romney would be a valuable economic advisor in a Republican administration, but I don't think he has the clout to win the nomination.

    The only way Palin does not own the Republican Party in the next four years is for another new face to pop up.  I'm thinking particularly of Bobby Jindal.

  • EkibiogamiEkibiogami Member UncommonPosts: 2,154
    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    No... actually it's Bull Crap, which I think is the staple for majority of the ultra conservatives on this forum.



     

    Havent read many of the Liberal posts here have ya....

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    —Samuel Adams

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    No... actually it's Bull Crap, which I think is the staple for majority of the ultra conservatives on this forum.



     

    So you think that a government run banking system is going to be better?  Let's see...  I USED to be able to go to bank A and get a loan for X percent....   but a few months down the road bank B would get me to go turn the loan over to them because they offered a better interest rate...and I got a better payment....

    Under a federalized banking system... goodbye to that... the bank in NY is going to give you the exact same GREAT service as the bank in key west or LA...and if one bank decides you're not credit worthy....you're SUNK because EVERY bank will use the same criteria on you.   no more competition for your business...nope, you're STUCK with THEM and forget customer service...they'll just give you some claim form or worse to fill out for every complaint that nobody will ever bother to read.

    you libs just don't have a clue about what's coming.

    that is just the banking example ....  let's talk cars now.... 

    When the auto industry is handed over to federal control, forget choice.   you'll pay based on YOUR income/status level.  Hello serfdom from the dark ages again.  you want a nice escalade?  hmmm..based on your federal banking score you may not have one. sorry.  you can have this nice escort instead.  << this example is a bit further down the road (get it? road? )  but it's not far off...  you think it's not?  you have handed over control to them a baby step at a time since the sixties.

    cradle to grave is every lib's wet dream of government.   but remember, the rules only apply to YOU, not the ones in power.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

    Originally posted by sepher


    Will be interesting to see how she does against a Huckabee or Romney if she does decide to run. I personally don't believe she can put up with an endurance test of 20+ months of campaigning and a dozen or two primary debates. She didn't even get through10 weeks of campaigning and 1 debate without failing spectacularly and ruinin' any image of being competent she might've ever had.



     

    As much as I like Huckabee and Romney, I don't see either one of them challenging Palin in 2012 should she decide to run.  They already ran once and neither one of them electrified the Republican base.  They are old news.  I don't see how they would have any chance of overcoming Palin's enormous popularity.  Romney would be a valuable economic advisor in a Republican administration, but I don't think he has the clout to win the nomination.

    The only way Palin does not own the Republican Party in the next four years is for another new face to pop up.  I'm thinking particularly of Bobby Jindal.



     

    All three of 'em polled well with Republicans just last month, all in the 60th percentile. Jindal polled some 20 points lower: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/poll.2012/

    As for Huckabee and Romney's primary losses, well they're just ex-Governors turned failed primary challengers like Reagan. Shouldn't be a disqualifying factor for 'em to run again.

    I don't think Palin has anything going for her. She's already dropping out of the news cycle fast. I don't see any "popularity", and you'd figure in December she shoulda been polling a lot higher than Romney and Huckabee since it was near the height of her media exposure.

    Anyway, all popularity isn't good popularity, 'else she would've won the election she lost for McCain. Joe the Plumber would never win a public office and he received more coverage than McCain in the month leading up to the election. It's just half-empty sensationalism; not as completely empty as Gary Coleman running for governor, but the gal wasn't taken seriously.

    More importantly, though, Palin had a LOT of good things going for her under McCain 1. Obama and Biden didn't target her for criticism. 2. She was able to get away with not speaking to the media. 3. She only had to speak at one debate, and she was given a pass on not staying on topic.

    You honestly believe Romney and Huckabee won't tear her apart at very stump speech? That she can get away with never speaking to the media and goin' back to callin' 'em elitist? That she can show up at 20 debates and declare she doesn't give a crap what the moderator wants to talk about?

    Please. She's going to get DESTROYED. Obama played teeball with the gal; let her swing and knock her own self out and McCain in the process. Any Republican candidate is going to pitch right at her face.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by sepher

    Originally posted by Zindaihas
    As much as I like Huckabee and Romney, I don't see either one of them challenging Palin in 2012 should she decide to run.  They already ran once and neither one of them electrified the Republican base.  They are old news.  I don't see how they would have any chance of overcoming Palin's enormous popularity.  Romney would be a valuable economic advisor in a Republican administration, but I don't think he has the clout to win the nomination.
    The only way Palin does not own the Republican Party in the next four years is for another new face to pop up.  I'm thinking particularly of Bobby Jindal.



     All three of 'em polled well with Republicans just last month, all in the 60th percentile. Jindal polled some 20 points lower: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/poll.2012/

    As for Huckabee and Romney's primary losses, well they're just ex-Governors turned failed primary challengers like Reagan. Shouldn't be a disqualifying factor for 'em to run again.

    I don't think Palin has anything going for her. She's already dropping out of the news cycle fast. I don't see any "popularity", and you'd figure in December she shoulda been polling a lot higher than Romney and Huckabee since it was near the height of her media exposure.

    Anyway, all popularity isn't good popularity, 'else she would've won the election she lost for McCain. Joe the Plumber would never win a public office and he received more coverage than McCain in the month leading up to the election. It's just half-empty sensationalism; not as completely empty as Gary Coleman running for governor, but the gal wasn't taken seriously.

    More importantly, though, Palin had a LOT of good things going for her under McCain 1. Obama and Biden didn't target her for criticism. 2. She was able to get away with not speaking to the media. 3. She only had to speak at one debate, and she was given a pass on not staying on topic.

    You honestly believe Romney and Huckabee won't tear her apart at very stump speech? That she can get away with never speaking to the media and goin' back to callin' 'em elitist? That she can show up at 20 debates and declare she doesn't give a crap what the moderator wants to talk about?

    Please. She's going to get DESTROYED. Obama played teeball with the gal; let her swing and knock her own self out and McCain in the process. Any Republican candidate is going to pitch right at her face.



     

    Wow, you're really living in denial.  Do you think a poll taken today will have any bearing on 2012?  Polls mean nothing until 2012 and even then they will give only a blurry picture at best.  And if anything, Jindal's number is very good news for him considering he is the only one of those four who has not yet run for a national office.  He doesn't have the name recognition they do.

    Reagan was the exception rather than the rule.  1980 was the third time he had run for President.  The first was in '68 when he had been governor of CA for only two years.  He had virtually no chance of winning that nomination.  In 1976 he ran in the primaries against incumbant Gerald Ford.  Even so, he almost knocked of the sitting President.  Ford built up a big lead and then Reagan caught fire in the second half of the primaries and just missed overtaking him.  After Ford was nominated, there was so much support for Reagan that Ford felt compelled to ask Reagan to come up on stage and speak.  After his speech, it was widely considered that Reagan was the better choice.  But it was too late.  Ford had already been nominated.

    In 1980, Reagan was still one candidate among many.  His nomination was not a certainty.  In fact, George Bush (the elder) looked like the early favorite.  And then came Reagan's famous "I am paying for this microphone!"  line in a debate before the New Hampshire primary.  The passion of that moment drew New Hampshire voters behind Reagan and from that moment the nomination was his.

    Despite your hopes, Palin is never far from national attention.  The buzz is that she is close to signing an $11 milion book deal with a major publisher.  If/when that happens, that will make news, trust me.  That will lead to a book tour and then re-election in 2010.  She's not going anywhere.  And neither is she concerned about her opponents in the primaries.  She'll hold her own just as she did against Biden in the VP debate.

    Actually, the 2012 Presidential election will probably be one of the most predictable in history.  Barring some kind of scandal, it's going to come down to a battle between Obama and Palin, with Jindal being a wildcard and Clinton being a long shot.  Only if Obama's Presidency completely falls apart in the next two years will Clinton be a factor.  If so, she would have to resign as Secretary of State after the 2010 mid-term elections to prepare for a 2012 challenge.  And my guess is Jindal is going to pass on 2012.  At 36, time is still on his side.  That leaves Obama and Palin.  I can even predict with relative confidence who will win that race.  It all will come down to how the country perceives Obama as President.  If he popular, say an approval rating above 50%, then he'll be re-elected.  If the country experiences major challenges that Obama fails to meet and he is unpopular, Sarah Palin will almost certainly be the next President of the United States.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by Zindaihas



    Wow, you're really living in denial.  Do you think a poll taken today will have any bearing on 2012?  Polls mean nothing until 2012 and even then they will give only a blurry picture at best.  And if anything, Jindal's number is very good news for him considering he is the only one of those four who has not yet run for a national office.  He doesn't have the name recognition they do.
    Reagan was the exception rather than the rule.  1980 was the third time he had run for President.  The first was in '68 when he had been governor of CA for only two years.  He had virtually no chance of winning that nomination.  In 1976 he ran in the primaries against incumbant Gerald Ford.  Even so, he almost knocked of the sitting President.  Ford built up a big lead and then Reagan caught fire in the second half of the primaries and just missed overtaking him.  After Ford was nominated, there was so much support for Reagan that Ford felt compelled to ask Reagan to come up on stage and speak.  After his speech, it was widely considered that Reagan was the better choice.  But it was too late.  Ford had already been nominated.
    In 1980, Reagan was still one candidate among many.  His nomination was not a certainty.  In fact, George Bush (the elder) looked like the early favorite.  And then came Reagan's famous "I am paying for this microphone!"  line in a debate before the New Hampshire primary.  The passion of that moment drew New Hampshire voters behind Reagan and from that moment the nomination was his.
    Despite your hopes, Palin is never far from national attention.  The buzz is that she is close to signing an $11 milion book deal with a major publisher.  If/when that happens, that will make news, trust me.  That will lead to a book tour and then re-election in 2010.  She's not going anywhere.  And neither is she concerned about her opponents in the primaries.  She'll hold her own just as she did against Biden in the VP debate.
    Actually, the 2012 Presidential election will probably be one of the most predictable in history.  Barring some kind of scandal, it's going to come down to a battle between Obama and Palin, with Jindal being a wildcard and Clinton being a long shot.  Only if Obama's Presidency completely falls apart in the next two years will Clinton be a factor.  If so, she would have to resign as Secretary of State after the 2010 mid-term elections to prepare for a 2012 challenge.  And my guess is Jindal is going to pass on 2012.  At 36, time is still on his side.  That leaves Obama and Palin.  I can even predict with relative confidence who will win that race.  It all will come down to how the country perceives Obama as President.  If he popular, say an approval rating above 50%, then he'll be re-elected.  If the country experiences major challenges that Obama fails to meet and he is unpopular, Sarah Palin will almost certainly be the next President of the United States.

     

    Do I believe a poll today will have any bearing on 2012? No, nor did I claim the poll did. I used the poll to show that even near the height of Palin's popularity, Huckabee and Romney who hadn't been in the spotlight for months measured equally with her amongst Republicans in popularity. So you're overshooting how "popular" she is.

    No idea why you cited Reagan's political history, ya said nothing to explain WHY he was an "exception" more than a "rule". What rule? And what does it mean for Sarah Palin when it comes to comparing her political future to the first failed female vice-presidential candidate? I'd wager as much as Al Sharpton's run meant somethin' to Obama's. i.e. nothing.

    My point was there is no "rule", and used Reagan as an example of a failed primary candidate. Romney and Huckabee have excellent chances at winning 2012's nominations. Afterall they've both won national primaries before, something Palin hasn't done. Hell her ticket partner McCain lost in the primaries in 2000 but went on to clinch the last one; why pretend there's a rule? 

    And there's no "hoping" I'm doing in terms of Palin's popularity dwindling. It could do nothing but dwindle from the news networks replaying her ditzy self 24/7. Now she's no where near a regular in national news. And it's still downhill from here. You named two possible news stories she'll generate; a book deal and re-election in 2010. Why pretend that's as substantive as daily stump speeches? She will fade into obscurity over the next few years, but so will Huckabee and Romney, it's natural.

    What's the point of me saying that? She'll be normalized just like Romney and Huckabee. If it placates you to hear, I fully expect her popularity to reignite once the primaries begin and people think "Oh yeah, I remember her." But she will be a non-player in the mean time.

    And nice fantasy about Palin's easy road to challenging Obama, but you're the one being delusional in thinking of it being "easily predictable". Fellow Republicans will DESTROY Palin. Bush in 2000 and what he did to McCain set the tone, and McCain had no issues hiring the same people that helped destroy him to try and destroy Obama. Palin was tucked away nice and snugly from any criticism and attacks from Obama and Biden, but do expect her complete trouncing in the primaries if she decides to run.



     

  • Vato26Vato26 Member Posts: 3,930
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    No... actually it's Bull Crap, which I think is the staple for majority of the ultra conservatives on this forum.



     

    So you think that a government run banking system is going to be better?  Let's see...  I USED to be able to go to bank A and get a loan for X percent....   but a few months down the road bank B would get me to go turn the loan over to them because they offered a better interest rate...and I got a better payment....

    Under a federalized banking system... goodbye to that... the bank in NY is going to give you the exact same GREAT service as the bank in key west or LA...and if one bank decides you're not credit worthy....you're SUNK because EVERY bank will use the same criteria on you.   no more competition for your business...nope, you're STUCK with THEM and forget customer service...they'll just give you some claim form or worse to fill out for every complaint that nobody will ever bother to read.

    you libs just don't have a clue about what's coming.

    that is just the banking example ....  let's talk cars now.... 

    When the auto industry is handed over to federal control, forget choice.   you'll pay based on YOUR income/status level.  Hello serfdom from the dark ages again.  you want a nice escalade?  hmmm..based on your federal banking score you may not have one. sorry.  you can have this nice escort instead.  << this example is a bit further down the road (get it? road? )  but it's not far off...  you think it's not?  you have handed over control to them a baby step at a time since the sixties.

    cradle to grave is every lib's wet dream of government.   but remember, the rules only apply to YOU, not the ones in power.

    <Hands Faxxer a roll of tin foil>  You will need this for your hats to protect you from... the dreaded government conspiracy. 



    You really need to lay off smoking the ultra conservative's "staple".

    Seriously... after reading your post, I almost feel like I'm reading a bad (as in really shoddy) conspiracy theory movie.  Sheesh.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by sepher
     Do I believe a poll today will have any bearing on 2012? No, nor did I claim the poll did. I used the poll to show that even near the height of Palin's popularity, Huckabee and Romney who hadn't been in the spotlight for months measured equally with her amongst Republicans in popularity. So you're overshooting how "popular" she is.
    No idea why you cited Reagan's political history, ya said nothing to explain WHY he was an "exception" more than a "rule". What rule? And what does it mean for Sarah Palin when it comes to comparing her political future to the first failed female vice-presidential candidate? I'd wager as much as Al Sharpton's run meant somethin' to Obama's. i.e. nothing.
    My point was there is no "rule", and used Reagan as an example of a failed primary candidate. Romney and Huckabee have excellent chances at winning 2012's nominations. Afterall they've both won national primaries before, something Palin hasn't done. Hell her ticket partner McCain lost in the primaries in 2000 but went on to clinch the last one; why pretend there's a rule? 
    And there's no "hoping" I'm doing in terms of Palin's popularity dwindling. It could do nothing but dwindle from the news networks replaying her ditzy self 24/7. Now she's no where near a regular in national news. And it's still downhill from here. You named two possible news stories she'll generate; a book deal and re-election in 2010. Why pretend that's as substantive as daily stump speeches? She will fade into obscurity over the next few years, but so will Huckabee and Romney, it's natural.
    What's the point of me saying that? She'll be normalized just like Romney and Huckabee. If it placates you to hear, I fully expect her popularity to reignite once the primaries begin and people think "Oh yeah, I remember her." But she will be a non-player in the mean time.
    And nice fantasy about Palin's easy road to challenging Obama, but you're the one being delusional in thinking of it being "easily predictable". Fellow Republicans will DESTROY Palin. Bush in 2000 and what he did to McCain set the tone, and McCain had no issues hiring the same people that helped destroy him to try and destroy Obama. Palin was tucked away nice and snugly from any criticism and attacks from Obama and Biden, but do expect her complete trouncing in the primaries if she decides to run.



     

    Oh I gotcha, you were using the poll to guage Palin's popularity against Romney's and Huckabee's.  Well I've got a better guage than a poll, the campaign trail.  Palin drew crowds out on the stump that Huckabee and Romney could only wish they had drawn when they were running.  I heard stories of voters driving across states and waiting in line for hours just to see Palin.  Neither of the other two brought anywhere near that kind of excitement to their campaigns.

    You appear to blame Palin for McCain's loss.  If so, you have shown yourself to be extremely gullible to the press's tactics.  History shows that a candidate's pick for VP has a negligible impact on Presidential elections, with 1960 being the possible exception.  If the VP candidate made that much of a difference, George Bush would have lost the 1988 race.

    In fact, Palin has a good example from which to draw in the past.  Franklin Roosevelt is perhaps the liberals' greatest hero and he was the VP candidate for the losing ticket in 1920.  The only bad news for Palin is that she can't run for President four times.

    As a general rule, a candidate has one shot at becoming a party's nominee, unless they are saved from obscurity by being chosen as the running mate of the Presidental winner or there is an extrememly weak field in a later election.  So people like George Bush (the 1st) and Al Gore were saved from obscurity by being chosen as the running mates of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton respectively.  The other case is a guy like Richard Nixon who was the Republican nominee in 1960.  After losing the 1962 California gubernatorial race, his political life appeared to be over.  Reporters had even written his obituary (with glee I might add).  But 1968 had no strong Republican candidate allowing him to win his party's nomination.  It also had no strong Democratic nominee, because if it had, I don't think Nixon would have won the 1968 election.

    And that brings me to the case of John McCain.  You mentioned his failed 2000 run.  But again, it was the lack of a strong candidate in the Republican field that allowed him to emerge as last year's nominee.  And his weakness was on full display when he went against a much more formidable candidate in Barack Obama.

    A much more likely scenario is an example like Steve Forbes.  He ran for President in 1996 and became a bit of a sensation, but was ultimately defeated by Bob Dole.  He ran again in 2000 and, had the Republican field been weak, may have had a chance.  But George W. Bush ran in 2000.  Despite your opinion of him now, Bush was a strong Presidential candidate in 2000.  He was a popular governor (just as Palin is) and had a strong grassroots following.  It was his grassroots campaign that allowed him to overcome McCain after being crushed in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.  Ross Perot is another good example.  He simply bypassed the primaries and ran for President on his personal fortune.  He garnered 19% of the popular vote in 1992.  Then he ran again in 1996.  But his novelty had worn off and he got only 10%.

    Now this is where you and I differ.  I don't believe that Romney or Huckabee have even a chance in 2012 if Palin runs because she will be too strong of a candidate.  As I mentioned, she is a popular governor who will win re-election in a landslide.  She already has strong nationwide appeal as evidenced by the crowds she drew in the 2008 election.  The one thing she doesn't have is a national campaign network.  But she is already working on that by setting up her PAC and she is on her way to D.C. to make connections with major players in Washington.  You talk about being in the news over the next few years, but that's not nearly as important as what goes on behind the scenes over the next few years.

    Now I will say this about Romney, he is extrememly well organized.  So if Palin screws up the network phase of her campaign, this may give Romney a chance.  So I suppose I should add that little caveat to my prediction.  But I'm telling you right here and now, if Palin is a skillful networker, neither Romney nor Huckabee stand a chance against her.

    The only thing that will stop her is if an even fresher face (like Jindal) appears on the scene or if Obama's Presidency is so successful that she decides a run in 2012 is not worth it.

    I know you don't believe she is a strong candidate, so I'm sure you dismiss just about everything I wrote about her in this post.  That's what we'll find out over the next couple of years.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662

    Of course I say all this as an outside observer.  She has to run as though she's a huge underdog, or she will lose by being overconfident.  I've seen it before.

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Vato26

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Rikimaru_X


    Why can't she just be happy with Alaska? I do think she's going to try to run for president, but what make her think she can suceed?



     

    She's going to suceed because Obama is going to take more freedom away from us than the patriot act ever could have imagined.

    point:

    Libs love to blame the "big evil corporations" for all the woes of capitalism...

    Obama wants to nationalize everything he touches....

    guess what?  At least with "evil corps" you can choose to boycot them and give your money to someone else....when the fed owns all the big industries...your choices are GONE.  FOREVER.

    Libs don't want to ever admit such a simplistic fact, but hey ...it's ok..  I'm glad I can point it out and show the flaw of their thinking.



     

    I want whatever your smoking..

    Reality... Itll give ya a great Buzz

     

    No... actually it's Bull Crap, which I think is the staple for majority of the ultra conservatives on this forum.



     

    So you think that a government run banking system is going to be better?  Let's see...  I USED to be able to go to bank A and get a loan for X percent....   but a few months down the road bank B would get me to go turn the loan over to them because they offered a better interest rate...and I got a better payment....

    Under a federalized banking system... goodbye to that... the bank in NY is going to give you the exact same GREAT service as the bank in key west or LA...and if one bank decides you're not credit worthy....you're SUNK because EVERY bank will use the same criteria on you.   no more competition for your business...nope, you're STUCK with THEM and forget customer service...they'll just give you some claim form or worse to fill out for every complaint that nobody will ever bother to read.

    you libs just don't have a clue about what's coming.

    that is just the banking example ....  let's talk cars now.... 

    When the auto industry is handed over to federal control, forget choice.   you'll pay based on YOUR income/status level.  Hello serfdom from the dark ages again.  you want a nice escalade?  hmmm..based on your federal banking score you may not have one. sorry.  you can have this nice escort instead.  << this example is a bit further down the road (get it? road? )  but it's not far off...  you think it's not?  you have handed over control to them a baby step at a time since the sixties.

    cradle to grave is every lib's wet dream of government.   but remember, the rules only apply to YOU, not the ones in power.

    <Hands Faxxer a roll of tin foil>  You will need this for your hats to protect you from... the dreaded government conspiracy. 



    You really need to lay off smoking the ultra conservative's "staple".

    Seriously... after reading your post, I almost feel like I'm reading a bad (as in really shoddy) conspiracy theory movie.  Sheesh.



     

    you actually think your life as you know it is going to continue unchanged.  you my friend are the one in la la land. 

    The world of free markets have been decimated.  And they may never come back.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162

    Please! PLEASE let her be the GOP's choice for 2012!!! It will be the best gift that the GOP could give to the Democrats and the country.

  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
    Originally posted by keltic1701


    Please! PLEASE let her be the GOP's choice for 2012!!! It will be the best gift that the GOP could give to the Democrats and the country.



     

    Read the last paragragh of my post #18.  The outcome of the 2012 election will have more to do with what kind of President Obama is than who he runs against.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

    Originally posted by keltic1701


    Please! PLEASE let her be the GOP's choice for 2012!!! It will be the best gift that the GOP could give to the Democrats and the country.



     

    Read the last paragragh of my post #18.  The outcome of the 2012 election will have more to do with what kind of President Obama is than who he runs against.



     

    I've read the whole sordid thread. And Palin's (or who ever runs in ' 12) character won't be? You're daft if you think it's just going to be all about Obama. And even if it is, it's far too soon to making a judgement now. Let's talk again in about 2 or 3  years time. THEN and only then might you're argument  have a leg to stand on.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by Zindaihas

     

    Oh I gotcha, you were using the poll to guage Palin's popularity against Romney's and Huckabee's.  Well I've got a better guage than a poll, the campaign trail.  Palin drew crowds out on the stump that Huckabee and Romney could only wish they had drawn when they were running.  I heard stories of voters driving across states and waiting in line for hours just to see Palin.  Neither of the other two brought anywhere near that kind of excitement to their campaigns.
    You appear to blame Palin for McCain's loss.  If so, you have shown yourself to be extremely gullible to the press's tactics.  History shows that a candidate's pick for VP has a negligible impact on Presidential elections, with 1960 being the possible exception.  If the VP candidate made that much of a difference, George Bush would have lost the 1988 race.
    In fact, Palin has a good example from which to draw in the past.  Franklin Roosevelt is perhaps the liberals' greatest hero and he was the VP candidate for the losing ticket in 1920.  The only bad news for Palin is that she can't run for President four times.
    As a general rule, a candidate has one shot at becoming a party's nominee, unless they are saved from obscurity by being chosen as the running mate of the Presidental winner or there is an extrememly weak field in a later election.  So people like George Bush (the 1st) and Al Gore were saved from obscurity by being chosen as the running mates of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton respectively.  The other case is a guy like Richard Nixon who was the Republican nominee in 1960.  After losing the 1962 California gubernatorial race, his political life appeared to be over.  Reporters had even written his obituary (with glee I might add).  But 1968 had no strong Republican candidate allowing him to win his party's nomination.  It also had no strong Democratic nominee, because if it had, I don't think Nixon would have won the 1968 election.
    And that brings me to the case of John McCain.  You mentioned his failed 2000 run.  But again, it was the lack of a strong candidate in the Republican field that allowed him to emerge as last year's nominee.  And his weakness was on full display when he went against a much more formidable candidate in Barack Obama.
    A much more likely scenario is an example like Steve Forbes.  He ran for President in 1996 and became a bit of a sensation, but was ultimately defeated by Bob Dole.  He ran again in 2000 and, had the Republican field been weak, may have had a chance.  But George W. Bush ran in 2000.  Despite your opinion of him now, Bush was a strong Presidential candidate in 2000.  He was a popular governor (just as Palin is) and had a strong grassroots following.  It was his grassroots campaign that allowed him to overcome McCain after being crushed in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.  Ross Perot is another good example.  He simply bypassed the primaries and ran for President on his personal fortune.  He garnered 19% of the popular vote in 1992.  Then he ran again in 1996.  But his novelty had worn off and he got only 10%.
    Now this is where you and I differ.  I don't believe that Romney or Huckabee have even a chance in 2012 if Palin runs because she will be too strong of a candidate.  As I mentioned, she is a popular governor who will win re-election in a landslide.  She already has strong nationwide appeal as evidenced by the crowds she drew in the 2008 election.  The one thing she doesn't have is a national campaign network.  But she is already working on that by setting up her PAC and she is on her way to D.C. to make connections with major players in Washington.  You talk about being in the news over the next few years, but that's not nearly as important as what goes on behind the scenes over the next few years.
    Now I will say this about Romney, he is extrememly well organized.  So if Palin screws up the network phase of her campaign, this may give Romney a chance.  So I suppose I should add that little caveat to my prediction.  But I'm telling you right here and now, if Palin is a skillful networker, neither Romney nor Huckabee stand a chance against her.
    The only thing that will stop her is if an even fresher face (like Jindal) appears on the scene or if Obama's Presidency is so successful that she decides a run in 2012 is not worth it.
    I know you don't believe she is a strong candidate, so I'm sure you dismiss just about everything I wrote about her in this post.  That's what we'll find out over the next couple of years.



     

    You have something "better than a poll"? Yeah, the polls showed that McCain/Palin were going to lose, and that she was a detriment to his ticket. They lost, and she apologized for being a detriment to the ticket the day after the election.  'cause polls indicating independents, women, suburban voters and etc. seeing her in a negative light turned out to be true.

    The press can't control a person's vote or their survey responses, the polling was just downright very accurate this last election season and Palin was seen as unworthy, s'all there is to it.

    And again with the "rules", there are no rules. Candidates have lost primaries and gone on to win the next set of primaries; period. You wantin' to believe Huckabee and Romney only had one shot is pure fantasy in your head. They poll as well as she, and the guy at the top at her ticket this year was a failed primary challenger turned nominee. Those are facts, and good reason for 'em to run if they feel like doing so.

    As for the crowds she attracted, what's so special about 'em? I recall her biggest being a supposed 60k in Florida, which was later debunked to have been less than half that by a fire chief's estimates. Not exactly Obama in St. Louis.

    But correct, Huckabee and Romney haven't drawn her numbers, but they also haven't been on a Presidential ticket. Their rallies were from primary voters, and divided between four or more candidates throughout it all.

    Palin will have to deal with the same thing. There's no instant support of the entire Republican party and it's supporters behind her. They'll be divided, and again, she's polling the same as Romney and Huckabee with the voters she needs to win the nomination should she decide to run.

    Alas, I honestly don't even expect her to run. She proved ineffectual in swaying audiences against Obama once, the last thing the Republican party needs when trying to rebrand itself and renew its image, is to put the woman who drove the nail in the party's casket to the forefront.

Sign In or Register to comment.