Subscribe via RSS Feed

On Palin’s Chances

[ 26 ] January 1, 2011 |

Silver’s take is, as always, worth reading.   To me, Palin still clearly has a serious chance of getting the 2012 nomination, and the key is point #3.   The GOP establishment is clearly going to unite against a candidate who might be historically weak, but if there’s a George W. Bush among prospective candidates they can actually focus on as an alternative, I haven’t seen him or her.  And without that the establishment’s ability to control primary voters is highly dubious.

Share with Sociable

Comments (26)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. c u n d gulag says:

    I’m not sure if she’ll run. “The Whore of Babblin’ On” has a pretty good grift going on FOX, TLC, and the bulk buyers for conservative poppycock in print. And let’s not forget the twat’s tweet’s, that everyone in the MSM follows breathlessly, as if every word-turd she dropped was a missing blonde teenage girl on a tropical island.

    Also, she may not want to face media and public scrutiny early, so if she does run, she’ll wait until she perceives that there is either a public outcry for her, or she believes she gets a tweet directly from GOD, his DAMN SELF! (in honor of the recently deceased great comedian Steve Landesberg – at least I think it was him, and if not, well, I mentioned his name so maybe others will remember him now). Maybe she thinks the 7+ dwarves who will be running will make her look like Snow White in comparison, and she can come in like Mariano at the last second and save the RepubliKlan Party (no Yankee jokes here, please)? If so, then that will be the moment that she strikes.
    So, I think that if she can come in late, then she will do it. After all, running for the next year before 2012 will take a lot of hard work and organization – not exactly words usually associated with ‘Snowgrifter Snookie.’ And besides, what’s the rush? There are still so many rubes out there waiting to have their hard-earned greenbacks plucked out of their pockets and into the bottomless gaping maw that is all things associated with the Von Palin Family as they tour the nation in their now too long-running play, “The Sound of Money.”
    Me? I hear that those little planes she flies in are much more prone to accidents than bigger ones, so there’s alway hope.
    If that’s cruel, I’m sorry. But every time The “Whore of Babblin’ On” opens up her yap, I wonder if I wouldn’t like life a lot better if I deafened myself with a .45 slug shot in one ear and coming out the other.
    If she gets elected President, I swear I’ll leave a bloody fucking mess that the late, great, Hunter S. Thompson will look down on with envy.

    BTW – Happy New Year to all of the great people at LG&M!!!

    • strategichamlet says:

      I think we could all do without the “whore” and “twat” comments regardless of who they are referring to.

      On the more substantive side, I tend to think she won’t run unless that’s absolutely the only way to keep herself in the spotlight/employed. This is after all the woman who randomly decided that being a governor cramped her style. She has to, on some level, realize that being president is a job (and a much harder one than governor of Alaska) and not just a popularity contest, despite all evidence to the contrary (thanks media!). GWB had a whole cadre of family friends he could turn the government over to once he won, she doesn’t have anyone like that.

      • Robert Farley says:

        In the context of normal blog usage, “whore” is probably fine; we often refer to “corporate” or “media” whores, etc.

        “Twat” is not acceptable in the comments section of this blog.

        • strategichamlet says:

          Fair enough, it’s your blog. I would contend though that there is a difference between calling, say John McCain, a “media whore” and repeatedly calling Sarah Palin “the” capital W Whore of whatever. I would think this is obvious.

        • c u n d gulag says:

          You’re right, I should have known that the “T” word usage was completely inappropriate. And I wouldn’t normally use it, except it seemed to fit with tweet’s. I was wrong. It wasn’t funny or enlightening.
          Lesson learned.
          Mea Culpa!
          Please accept my apologies.

  2. Bill Murray says:

    John Thune could be the new GWB. He’s been a lobbyist and brought home the bacon for his client as his first (and nigh only) act in the Senate, so the money boys would like him.

    He tried to add a concealed carry reciprocity amendment to a troop support bill, so the NRA is down with him.

    He went to an evangelical college, so the religious base likes him.

    He’s dumb as a post and mainly mouths whatever talking points are placed in front of him, so he’s like GWB in that way.

    In 12 years in the House and Senate he has almost no legislative record so he’s a tabula rasa in that respect.

    So in many ways he’s the Republican establishment wet dream.

  3. John Protevi says:

    No love for Jeb? He’s not his brother, after all (so runs a not-entirely exciting campaign slogan).

  4. FMguru says:

    I’m pretty sure the establishment types and the money people will coalesce around Romney. They had already started to do so towards the end of the 2008 nomination process (too late to keep McCain from winning it) – I remember how National Review and Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh suddenly became All Romney, All The Time, then.

    GOP presidential primaries are notoriously resistant to outsider figures, and are often pretty much settled before the first vote is cast. 2008 was an anomaly because the esablishment didn’t pick a strong figure going in (like they did in 2000 where they lined up behind Dubya and he steamrollered the field) – I doubt they’ll make the same mistake this time around. I wonder how they’ll rig (excuse me, “reform”) the nominating rules to Palin’s disadvantage?

  5. Davis X. Machina says:

    Ceteris paribus, the GOP nomination goes to the best hater. (Nixon’s Law)

    • mds says:

      Yeah, self-evidently not hysterical about the Coming Yellow Peril, and currently works for Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton. I can just see the Tea Party endorsements flooding in. Given that the lunatics have actually tightened their control of the asylum, I don’t really feel that 2012 is Huntsman’s year. If the GOP ever actually gets around to that purging the batshit Constitution-shredding sociopaths, then maybe. But that’s apparently going to take rather longer than all five principled conservatives hoped.

  6. wengler says:

    The GOP primary voters are going to want someone really mean. Palin plays this role well, but really anyone with a callous disregard toward humanity will do.

    The candidate that finds the magical balance between promising to kill brown people abroad and pissing off liberals at home, with the implicit threat of killing liberals “when the time comes”, will carry the day.

  7. Bruce Wilder says:

    Obama works awfully well for the powers-that-be, which ordinarily choose a Republican Nominee, for the Republicans. Just as in 2008, there will be a strong impulse to either stand aside, or give weak support to a loser of a candidate. I fully expect the Smart Money in the Republican Party to be working overtime to ensure that the Republicans lose the 2012 Presidential election.

    Not every power in the Republican Party agrees with such a strategy, of course, and that’s why Mitt Romney is the most likely nominee. Not because Romney appeals so much to the business class, as FMguru says, but because Romney, with solid Mormon $$$upport and a personal fortune, does not need the Smart Money in the early going. Smart Money will find it tough to beat something (Romney) with nothing (rumors of Palin).

    It will be interesting to see to what lengths the Plutocracy will go to re-elect Obama.

    In the end, they may decide to chance Romney. Romney will certainly do what he can to persuade them. But, I doubt it. Obama is way too useful, and it doesn’t take a genius to see that having a rich white man in the White House during a prolonged period of grinding economic decline for most Americans is taking a risk, on the possibility of a mass reaction. You don’t stay a plutocrat by taking risks; you stay a plutocrat by giving those risks to the masses.

    • Robert Farley says:

      I wish I could be at the meetings where the Plutocrats decide these things; I understand that they serve Bud Light Lime in frosted glasses…

      • Bruce Wilder says:

        Crying ‘conspiracy theory!’? Really!? Paranoia as a psychological defense?

        The extremely wealthy and the corporate executive class, which drive American politics, do not form a conspiracy.

        From the Ford Administration to the Second Bush Administration, Republican Presidential politics appeared to be a well-oiled machine, because it was a well-oiled machine, manned and tended by a Presidential Party of a few thousand, well-supported, connected and organized by the growing infrastructure of the conservative movement, in power and out. Rumsfeld and Cheney were its superannuated leadership, and they are gone. Obama invited Gates and a rump into his Administration, where they’ve aided Obama’s neoliberals in continuing Bush Policy.

        We are well into the era of the spokes-model politician in Republican politics: good-looking people, attracted to celebrity, who have absolutely no understanding of, or interest in, power or governance.

        There’s no well-funded Presidential Party on the Republican side, seeking Palin or anyone else to return them to Power. No band of brothers/office-seekers on the inside, and no policy-seekers on the outside. No Project for a New American Century; no Sandy Weill or Ken Lay, no group of bankers or oilmen feeling left out. Because Obama has kept the successors of those folks in power, their agendas playing out uninterrupted — their wars continuing, their financial empires paying bonuses out of record corporate profits, their oil flowing. Obama is not opposing their ambition to steal Social Security. He’s not cutting the Defense budget. He has not inhibited them in their plan to foreclose on millions of homes, or impress millions of college students into debt peonage.

        The owners of America may be willing to fund an incompetent mainstream Media and a noisy Tea Party and Glenn Beck and all the rest, but the Wrecking Crew scares them more than a little. And, Obama knows that. He offers calm technocratic competence of a neoliberal bent, which will do absolutely nothing to stem the tax-cuts and wage-cuts. And, he keeps the blacks and hispanics and the liberals cleanly separated from the white populists. He’s a great deal for them.

        I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, or even much uniformity of opinion on strategy. But, the very wealthy and the corporate executive class include a lot of people with an acute awareness of politics, who can see what Obama offers them very, very clearly.

        And, there really isn’t an organized power-seeking core to Presidential politics in the Republican Party — not like there was. Romney is a very smart and ambitious man; he will find opposition from some unexpected places, from some people, who know they have a good thing going.

    • jeer9 says:

      Bruce,
      I’ve promoted that analysis as well, though the audience/management at this site is not terribly receptive to such a view. They prefer to see Obama as struggling against long odds (despite large majorities in both houses) to enact a progressive agenda and failing miserably, either due to stupidity, incompetence, or structural problems beyond an individual’s power to repair. Our best hope apparently lies in “more and better Democrats,” developing a taste for the table scraps that are thrown our way, and arguing vehemently against a primary challenge (Grayson?) or third party candidate because Obama does at least choose more liberal SC justices. And in any case, BHO is not smart enough to be carrying out a Clintonian plan for re-election, aided and abetted by the Republicans who really really REALLY hate him, especially as he caves prior to every negotiation. And when the health insurance mandate enforced by the IRS kicks in around 2014, people will want to support the Dems even more ardently. I think the plutocrats may be drinking something richer than beer, but there’s absolutely no doubt as to who’ll be carrying their water.

      • Joe says:

        “failing miserably” = passing lots of legislation (down to ending DADT) that is ignored by those who think all he and Democratic control in two years got is two (heck maybe 1! Kagan was a waste, right?) liberal justice.

        Now, don’t you worry. There are a few around here who share your sentiments though even they probably don’t see Grayson as a primary threat. As to “plutocrats,” clearly the American People (the same people of whom 40% believe in creation science and find gays distasteful — not just ideal people held down by the man) aren’t the one who are more comfortable with some moderate like Obama as they go about their lives.

      • Bruce Wilder says:

        The “scary Palin; rally to Obama” line is well past its sell-by date. Recognizing the sad reality that Obama, not Palin, is the chief obstacle to democracy may be a bridge too far.

  8. She’s not running. Unless they change the campaign rules so she can keep all the clothes and cash.

  9. Chuchundra says:

    I just don’t see it. I can see her declaring her candidacy and raising some cash, but bailing when it comes time to actually do some work.

    Does anyone here think she can do the kind of on the ground, person to person campaign required in the NH and Iowa? Will she really give unscripted interviews to the local news who may not be so enamored of her? Will she get up on stage with the dozen or so GOP hopefuls and attempt to give coherent-seeming answers to policy questions?

    More importantly, does anyone think that she really wants to do the job of being POTUS? She could barely stand being Governor of Alaska for Ghi’s sake.

  10. kth says:

    Relative to a year ago, the chances of Palin being the nominee (while still a distinct possibility) have definitely receded. Besides her own follies, Obama’s stagnant poll numbers are the worst news for Palin: the more vulnerable he is, the more Republicans are likely to consider their candidate’s electability.

  11. mds says:

    Meanwhile, what about Mike Pence? So stupid he needs his staff to remember to breathe for him, sterling deranged theocratic monster credentials, and would gladly allow the Money Power(TM) to insert its hand all the way up his backside. He’s a male Sarah Palin with more political experience, and fewer scruples and brains.

  12. cleter says:

    The GOP nominee is not going to be some long shot obscure person like Thune or Daniels or Pence or any other guy who’s never run before. The GOP nominee is somebody who ran before and did ok and/or a VP candidate. It’s been that way since they were running against Roosevelt. You can only buck that system if you’ve beaten the Nazis or have a president daddy. That leaves Romney, Huckabee, and Palin.

    And to those who say she won’t run–she’s ALREADY running. She’s got the jump on everybody. Well, everybody but Romney, who’s more or less been running since 2006 or so. She’s found a new lazy-person style of running for president.

  13. cpinva says:

    ms. palin hasn’t even a snowball’s chance of winning anything, much less the republican nomination in 2012, 2016, or 3016. that an entire column in the nyt’s would be devoted to her is exhibit “A” of how low the “gray lady” has fallen.

    puh-lease! my cat has a better chance of winning in 2012, he’s at least furry and loveable.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.