Could Palin pull a Nader?

[Zagg]

And if she did - would she fragment the "R" vote, or win?

No, I don't think she could. I think at this point, conservatives are so out for Obama's blood they'd never go with a third party.

Case in point. After Democrats became fully infected by Bush Derangement Syndrome, Nader ran again in 2004, but he got a lot less votes than he did in 2000.

Also, putting together a third party movement would take a lot of effort and a lot of money.

Palin as never struck me as someone who wants to work that hard.

But isn't said third party already in place, i.e., the Tea Party? In my estimation, it's just a matter of knitting together all the organizations.

Although some TPers have claimed that it's not a Repub movement, basically, it's a Repub movement. I think that the chances that they'd bolt the party are very slim. That said, a lot of them will be very unhappy if Romney gets the nomination. Mad enough to bolt? I doubt it, but who knows.

 

[Xchel]

My guess is she could pull a stunt like that but she would not win...what she would do is hurt Republicans when it come to their ultra right wing..which isn't a huge percent..she might pull 1% so she would possibly cost them the race, but she would definately not win. There are lots of Republicans that want to puke from the moment that she speaks.

 

[Zagg]

And end her gravy train?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm seriously not. I think Sarah is a narcissist. I also think she's power-hungry. Hence, my belief that she absolutely will run.

Nah, I think Sarah is quite bright. She knows she won the lottery and is making the most of it. If she enters the race and is rejected, then she becomes politically irrelevant and her future as a political pundit dies out along with all the money.

Well said.

 

[BDBoop]

And end her gravy train?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm seriously not. I think Sarah is a narcissist. I also think she's power-hungry. Hence, my belief that she absolutely will run.

Nah, I think Sarah is quite bright. She knows she won the lottery and is making the most of it. If she enters the race and is rejected, then she becomes politically irrelevant and her future as a political pundit dies out along with all the money.

Nope, she'll just claim the lamestream media poisoned the well, and continue on her merry way.

 

[JoeB131]

And if she did - would she fragment the "R" vote, or win?

No, I don't think she could. I think at this point, conservatives are so out for Obama's blood they'd never go with a third party.

Case in point. After Democrats became fully infected by Bush Derangement Syndrome, Nader ran again in 2004, but he got a lot less votes than he did in 2000.

Also, putting together a third party movement would take a lot of effort and a lot of money.

Palin as never struck me as someone who wants to work that hard.

But isn't said third party already in place, i.e., the Tea Party? In my estimation, it's just a matter of knitting together all the organizations.

Well, okay, but I think you need to stop knitting together your estimations.

I think the TEA Party has never been anything but a link in the GOP coalition and never will be anything more. It's changing the nature of the party, but that's about it.

Palin will endorse Perry and then enjoy her life...

 

[ladyliberal]

In a way, it's surprising that we don't see a third party candidate. The Tea Party seems stronger than the Green Party and Reform Party were, and they certainly influenced elections with their candidates. Right now though, there just doesn't seem to be enough daylight between the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party to produce a split, and I don't see a Romney nomination changing that.

A third-party candidate doesn't seem impossible, but I don't think it would be Palin in any case. The last times, to the best of my recollection, that we saw intraparty revolts that carried over into the general election were John Anderson's in 1980 and George Wallace's in 1968. Those were both the results of historic realignments within the parties, and I don't see the Tea Party movement as having the same significance. A third candidate would probably be someone who wasn't already known as a political figure, more like Perot or Nader.

 

[del]

she could certainly pull a train

 

[JoeB131]

She will cause a Democratic victory in the WH if she runs.

If she runs, she is doing it for her benefit, so what does she get out of a run? More attention, more opportunity for $$$, the separation of the Hard Right from a GOP that will not let it back in the tent.

So: what's her motive if she runs?

Well, if it was Romney vs. Obama, that would be a choice between two liberals. So she might as well run.

 

[rightwinger]

Palin will not run

She will delay her announcement that she will be able do do more for the country if she doesn't run as long as she can. Palin can not provide open access to the Lamestream media, she would be eaten alive.

She will continue her role as someone who stands on the sidelines, snipes at other politician and pretends she is relevant

 

[Ame®icano]

Good article.

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide -NYT

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will cause a Democratic victory in the WH if she runs.

If she runs, she is doing it for her benefit, so what does she get out of a run? More attention, more opportunity for $$$, the separation of the Hard Right from a GOP that will not let it back in the tent.

So: what's her motive if she runs?

Well, if it was Romney vs. Obama, that would be a choice between two liberals. So she might as well run.

Obama is a liberal if not a good one, Romney is farther to the right than you like, and you are not a conservative, JoeB, so no one really is worried about your take on it.

 

[JoeB131]

She will cause a Democratic victory in the WH if she runs.

If she runs, she is doing it for her benefit, so what does she get out of a run? More attention, more opportunity for $$$, the separation of the Hard Right from a GOP that will not let it back in the tent.

So: what's her motive if she runs?

Well, if it was Romney vs. Obama, that would be a choice between two liberals. So she might as well run.

Obama is a liberal if not a good one, Romney is farther to the right than you like, and you are not a conservative, JoeB, so no one really is worried about your take on it.

I'm sorry... I guess I'm not seeing the difference.

Obama Supports Government Run Health Care. Romney supports Government Run Health Care.

Obama supports a woman's right to kill her fetus. Romney supports a woman's right to kill her fetus.

Obama supports gun control. Romney supports Gun Control.

Obama supports gay rights. Romney supports gay rights.

(Incidently, for the record, I don't care about abortion or gay rights all that much, I just point out that there isn't much daylight between their positions on the issues.)

The only difference is that Romney would hold down working people and let big corporations screw them, and Obama will just stand their stupidly while they do it.

Oh yeah, and Romney belongs to a bat-shit crazy cult started by a child molester 160 years go.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We understand that you are myopic, JoeB. Romney is much further right than you like, and Romney would kick Sarah's tail in a straight up primary season tween the two. With Perry in now, Sarah is dead last among the front runners.

I am curious to see how much Perry shifts towards the center in the Florida debate.

 

[JoeB131]

We understand that you are myopic, JoeB. Romney is much further right than you like, and Romney would kick Sarah's tail in a straight up primary season tween the two. With Perry in now, Sarah is dead last among the front runners.

I am curious to see how much Perry shifts towards the center in the Florida debate.

YOu know what my problem with Romney is? (besides the fact I hate his religion, that is)

It's that he isn't Right, Left or Center. He believes whatever his image makers say is polling well. He was a "liberal" in Massachussetts. He was a "conservative" in 2008 because McCain and Guiliani had the "moderate" side of the street sewed up. Now he's running for the "Media-approved" Republican slot McCain used to occupy. He's whatever the pollster tell him to be, and that's the problem. People can tell phoniness and they don't like it.

I don't like Palin and wouldn't vote for her in the primary, but I'd love for her to get in if the GOP has a Brain fart and nominates Romney. She'll lose, but she'll block Romney from winning and tell the establishment they need to stop treating conservatives like dirt.

I suspect Perry will try to soften his hard edges and sound more concilitory on issues. I suspect we will see less of saying "Ponzi Scheme" about Social Security. He won't, however, comprimise on his core principles. I don't even think Romney has core principles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, JoeB, we are having a civil dialogue. Thanks. I don't think Perry has a core is my problem with him, which is what you are saying, I think, about Romney. Both of us may be more clear sighted about the other guy than our own.

We are going to end up with a ticket with both of them, I think.

Hah . . . watch Christie jump in and upset the apple cart!

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, JoeB, we are having a civil dialogue. Thanks. I don't think Perry has a core is my problem with him, which is what you are saying, I think, about Romney. Both of us may be more clear sighted about the other guy than our own.

We are going to end up with a ticket with both of them, I think.

Hah . . . watch Christie jump in and upset the apple cart!

Christy would do more damage to Romney than Perry. Same region, liberal on social issues, etc. Also, he's fat, and we just don't elect fat guys. (and if anyone's asking, my BMI is above average, but I'm working on that.)

My definition about Core Values is that does a guy stick to his guns in the face of opposition. Perry does that. Romney doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is not core values, that is stubborness, and some will see it as immoral inability to recognize when one is wrong when it comes to Perry. Naw, Christie's tummy will not hinder his electability any more than it did Cleveland or Taft, and he is no where the size of either of them. Christie emotes leadership and competence all the time, and Perry is considered shady in these areas, whereas Christie does not.

 

[JoeB131]

No, that is not core values, that is stubborness, and some will see it as immoral inability to recognize when one is wrong when it comes to Perry.

Or they will admire his guts. I often say that elections are reactions to the last guy. In short, the "antidote" theory.

Jimmy Carter won because Ford Pardoned Nixon. He was an outsider compared to the insiders.

Reagan won because he was a tough cowboy compared to the feckless Carter.

Bush won because Reagan endorsed him. Because Reagan was still well thought of, the Antidote rule probably doesn't apply here.

Clinton won because he was young and vibrant and connected with working people compared to the patrician Bush.

Bush-43 won because he said "Jesus" convincingly after the morally "Stained" Clinton president.

If you look at 2012 as "We are nominating an antidote to Obama", then sorry, Romney is more of the same, but Perry is a true antidote.

Naw, Christie's tummy will not hinder his electability any more than it did Cleveland or Taft, and he is no where the size of either of them. Christie emotes leadership and competence all the time, and Perry is considered shady in these areas, whereas Christie does not.

Guy, if you have to go back 100 years to find a fat president, that tells me no one is going to elect the fat guy.

There is a much greater cultural antipathy towards the overweight. Its' really the last acceptable prejudice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By your argument, if Obama re-connects with the voters, and he will try mightily over his jobs plan, then the GOP nominee is in deep water.

 

[JoeB131]

By your argument, if Obama re-connects with the voters, and he will try mightily over his jobs plan, then the GOP nominee is in deep water.

Yeah, if he does...

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

I don't think he will, though. I think the pie is pretty much baked on that one. I think Obama's vote total will be about where his approval rating is.

I think corporations aren't going to hire until after the election unless they absolutely have to.