Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
100 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Does anything thing the GOP could be stupid enough to pick Palin in 2012? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Taylor
United States
Gastonia
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, you would have to be stupid.

...Stupid awesome!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bela's dead and Vampira won't talk
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think so.

Whereas she may or may not have some personal aspirations that way, and certainly there will be plenty of staunch Republicans who want her to, I think the GOP leadership realizes that she's unelectable, as you do. I think we're likely to see a Mitt Romney , Scott Brown, or Mitch Daniels as a frontrunner. If the base skews more conservative in the primaries, perhaps we'll see someone more articulate and electable like Mike Huckabee or John Thune. That said, as the electorate becomes more socially liberal with age, they may prove tough sells as well.

In my opinion, Palin will be content enough to remain a cheerleader and sell books while the GOP runs a savvier candidate on an anti-Obama fiscal platform.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bela's dead and Vampira won't talk
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
laugh Weren't the libs saying the same thing about Reagan after 1976 when he ran for president and prior to 1980? Why, come to think of it they were.


To be fair, Reagan came off as articulate and as an everyman that moderates could get behind. I think you might be correct about the Carter/Obama comparison in terms of perception. She's popular on the right, but most moderates, both in my anecdotal experience and in poll results during and since the election, don't like Palin.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
Heart full of soul, head full of shit
badge
Snob of the People
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh sure, Chiddler, but you're seeing it from a bias where "simple-minded" or "unsophisticated" are viewed as an insult rather than a job qualification.

Pinko faggot.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
She won't take the primary, but it'd probably be good for the Republicans if she did. If she got the nod and then lost terribly (which any Republican likely will in 2012), then the saner Republicans could use her loss as an example and attempt to reconstruct the party.

As it stands, party leadership seems to dislike her, so I don't imagine she'll get far.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bela's dead and Vampira won't talk
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ilthuain wrote:
If she got the nod and then lost terribly (which any Republican likely will in 2012) my bold -lc


I'm curious why you think this. Obama was rather popular among moderates during the election and early on, but his current approval rating among independents is only 29%. (New York Magazine, courtesy of a Marist University poll.) Congressional approval is only 21%, 16% among independents (Gallup).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ilthuain wrote:
She won't take the primary, but it'd probably be good for the Republicans if she did. If she got the nod and then lost terribly (which any Republican likely will in 2012), then the saner Republicans could use her loss as an example and attempt to reconstruct the party.

As it stands, party leadership seems to dislike her, so I don't imagine she'll get far.


Actually, while I think Palin would be a rather poor choice for the Republicans under most circumstances, I think the GOP has a very realistic shot of winning the White House back in 2012. The health care mess, the economy, the deficit, and Obama's apparent inability to connect with the common man, appear to have eroded the support he enjoyed during the campaign from moderates and independents. The President's approval rating is now under 50%. (47% as of today, to be exact) - see:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obam...

If the recent governorship races in VA and NJ, plus Kennedy's MA Senate seat outcome are any indication, 2012 should be a hotly contested race, and if the Republican's can find someone with a pulse who doesn't have the baggage of a Palin, President Obama runs a serious risk of being a one-term president.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
Does anything thing


Huh? And you even have the tools to edit before pushing submit. Man, you should try writing some crib notes on your hand or something before you go off calling other people stupid.
13 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
If the recent governorship races in VA and NJ, plus Kennedy's MA Senate seat outcome are any indication


Virginia - heavily outspent Dem candidate with personality of grapefruit
New Jersey - widely loathed and corrupt incumbent governor
Massachusetts - your best argument, and even then a small margin of victory over one of the worst campaigns in recent memory

All these do is prove that local political factors matter. Why didn't the Democratic Congressional pickups (on the same night as NJ and VA) count for "indication"? Or the special election in the New York congressional district where the Tea Party's candidate got spanked? Is that not indicative enough? What counts as indicative other than "Republican wins"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It'd be fucking retarded if they did.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
If the recent governorship races in VA and NJ, plus Kennedy's MA Senate seat outcome are any indication


Virginia - heavily outspent Dem candidate with personality of grapefruit
New Jersey - widely loathed and corrupt incumbent governor
Massachusetts - your best argument, and even then a small margin of victory over one of the worst campaigns in recent memory

All these do is prove that local political factors matter. Why didn't the Democratic Congressional pickups (on the same night as NJ and VA) count for "indication"? Or the special election in the New York congressional district where the Tea Party's candidate got spanked? Is that not indicative enough? What counts as indicative other than "Republican wins"?


Chris - don't misunderstand, I'm by no means saying a Republican presidential victory in 2012 is a given. My point is simply that Tobias' post blithely declaring that the Republicans are likely to lose the presidential election in 2012 "terribly" is rather unfounded, and that there are indications to allow an observer to form an opposite opinion. That's all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
le_cygne wrote:
Ilthuain wrote:
If she got the nod and then lost terribly (which any Republican likely will in 2012) my bold -lc


I'm curious why you think this. Obama was rather popular among moderates during the election and early on, but his current approval rating among independents is only 29%. (New York Magazine, courtesy of a Marist University poll.) Congressional approval is only 21%, 16% among independents (Gallup).


Cycles are in his favor (the economy will have recovered by 2012), he can claim victory in Iraq, he's personally magnetic, he has a great political team, he has the minority vote rolled up, and he can blame Republican obstructionism for his failures. Fair or not, that's how it's going to go.

It also doesn't hurt that Republicans are still deeply unpopular, and the "front-runners" for 2012 are all damaged goods. Palin is a moron, Romney flip-flops (and has a religion problem), Jindal can't speak (also... a religion problem), Huckabee is kook (although I kinda like him), Pawlenty has no personality and Gingrich is a nightmare.

To beat an incumbent, you have to give people a reason to vote for you. Currently, the Republicans can only say, "Democrats are bad!" but have offered up nothing as an alternative. At best, they'll run a Kerry-style campaign.

Approval ratings for congress mean nothing, by the way. The followup question should always be, "but how do you feel about your congress person?"
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bojan Ramadanovic
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
She could be nominated, she could even be elected.
There is a strong similarity as far as I can say - not to Reagan but to Obama.
She is a reasonably empty vessel around which the "insurgent" wing of the party can wrap themselves with great enthusiasm. That seems to do wonders in primaries.
What she would need then is the vastly unpopular president and she could ride the wave of not-Obama to national victory.
It is a fairly long shot but I would not put it beyond possibility. If she is smart though, she will wait for 2016. 4 years is just not enough for Obama to generate sufficient loathing in the general populace.

One day with some luck though America will have a president whose most relevant attribute is not that they are not their predecessor. Last such was Clinton if I am not mistaken.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ilthuain wrote:

Cycles are in his favor (the economy will have recovered by 2012),


This is exactly why he will lose in 2012 -- the economy won't have recovered. Even with over-optimistic models for economic growth, unemployment is likely to still be at least around 8% by then. Better than now, but nowhere near the 5.8% when he took office. Hell, it will probably be 2016 before unemployment gets back down to reasonable levels.


EDIT: Regarding Palin -- Ronald Reagan's son, Ron, tore into her last night on CNN. He said his father would have hated her because she is incompetent when it comes to actual policies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
It'd be fucking retarded if they did.



Hey, who let Rahm post in RSP?

devil
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
Ilthuain wrote:

Cycles are in his favor (the economy will have recovered by 2012),


This is exactly why he will lose in 2012 -- the economy won't have recovered. Even with over-optimistic models for economic growth, unemployment is likely to still be at least around 8% by then. Better than now, but nowhere near the 5.8% when he took office. Hell, it will probably be 2016 before unemployment gets back down to reasonable levels.


EDIT: Regarding Palin -- Ronald Reagan's son, Ron, tore into her last night on CNN. He said his father would have hated her because she is incompetent when it comes to actual policies.


As long as we're in an upswing he can claim that the nastiness in his first year was caused by forces beyond his control, yet he'll also take credit for the forward motion and go with a "we're just getting back on our feet, don't trust the people who screwed it up so badly last time" defense.

Any Republican who goes for the "how are you doing now compared to 4 years ago" approach is only doing damage to their own party. Bush really was bad enough that, rightly or wrongly, Obama can effectively use his failed presidency to deflect all attacks that come from the right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ilthuain wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
Ilthuain wrote:

Cycles are in his favor (the economy will have recovered by 2012),


This is exactly why he will lose in 2012 -- the economy won't have recovered. Even with over-optimistic models for economic growth, unemployment is likely to still be at least around 8% by then. Better than now, but nowhere near the 5.8% when he took office. Hell, it will probably be 2016 before unemployment gets back down to reasonable levels.


EDIT: Regarding Palin -- Ronald Reagan's son, Ron, tore into her last night on CNN. He said his father would have hated her because she is incompetent when it comes to actual policies.


As long as we're in an upswing he can claim that the nastiness in his first year was caused by forces beyond his control, yet he'll also take credit for the forward motion and go with a "we're just getting back on our feet, don't trust the people who screwed it up so badly last time" defense.

Any Republican who goes for the "how are you doing now compared to 4 years ago" approach is only doing damage to their own party. Bush really was bad enough that, rightly or wrongly, Obama can effectively use his failed presidency to deflect all attacks that come from the right.


Actually, I think he may already be past the point of effectively leaning on that crutch. Based on reactions to the SotU address, I think the American public has taken the attitude of "yes, we know you inherited problems, but you're the president now - what are you going to do to fix things." Blaming continued sluggishness in the economy, massive deficits, and combat in Afghanistan on the previous administration is not an effective tactic for someone who campaigned on the position that he was going to change things. I don't think anyone is going to want to hear "I meant to change things, but I didn't realize just how bad things were when I was campaigning - this job is alot harder than I thought." And frankly, by 2012, Bush will be just a memory - I don't think Obama can use that fading memory as an effective excuse for why things are still not working. It's just not how politics work.

We are all getting ahead of ourselves though - let's see how the midterms work out and then we can get a better picture of the direction of the tide.

BTW - with the unfortunate passing of congressman Murtha from my state of PA, his district is looking like it might go Republican for the first time in decades. This, even though the district registration is 2-1 Democrat. Thing is, these are socially conservative Democrats (what used to be known as "Reagan Democrats"), and interviews with prospective voters seem to indicate that they are not enthralled with the current direction of the Federal government.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Quote:
Does anything thing


Huh? And you even have the tools to edit before pushing submit. Man, you should try writing some crib notes on your hand or something before you go off calling other people stupid.


Is is just me or are thread thread titles getting worse?
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:


Listen to Palin. Don't watch the analysis of her comments. She is quite articulate,


I agree that she sure utters most words clearly and in distinct syllables.

I also agree that as long as you don't try to think about what those words mean, she comes off just fine.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
And frankly, by 2012, Bush will be just a memory - I don't think Obama can use that fading memory as an effective excuse for why things are still not working. It's just not how politics work.


4 years ago is a fading memory?

you honestly think people will be sitting around in 2012 saying, "Remember waaaaay back whenm before this shady Obama character came on these scene? Those were good times, before Barry-O single-handedly obliterated the economy. Whoever that president was before him was so very excellent!"

Bush's presidency was a disaster, and just like Carter was blamed for Reagan's problems (indirectly, mind you), Bush'll take the heat for the problems of Obama's first year.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If he uses Obama's platform, she has a chance for the nomination at least. All she has to do is let the netroots write her platform for her.

I look forward to the next election, if just to see how can Obama run a second campaign now that we've seen that he left good chunks of what he promised behind.

Now, the question is, where will Obama be in the polls in 2012? By then, barring extremely unlikely economic conditions, the economy will be doing better than it is now, and Obama will be able to claim he caused the improvement. What will the Republicans run on?

Now, if the economy is still in the crapper in 2012, Obama's chances of winning would have to rely on severe distraction. I'd be very surprised if it'd get to that though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DCAnderson wrote:
I'm putting my money on:

Fails to win nomination, but has a strong enough following so she will run as an independent or "Tea Party candidate". Won't stand a chance of winning and will just split the Republican vote.

No way. I will bet you real money or GeekGold she doesn't get the Republican nomination and she doesn't run under a third party.

Or if you prefer, I will give you 2 to 1 odds on just the third party bit.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bela's dead and Vampira won't talk
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ilthuain wrote:
Cycles are in [Obama's] favor (the economy will have recovered by 2012), he can claim victory in Iraq, he's personally magnetic, he has a great political team, he has the minority vote rolled up, and he can blame Republican obstructionism for his failures. Fair or not, that's how it's going to go.


He does have personal charisma, a great team, and the traditionally Democratic minority vote, but I'm not as certain about the other factors. Will Iraq play with voters, especially when Afghanistan is still ongoing? Do voters really care about obstructionism when it's most visible in obstructing a relatively unpopular healthcare plan? (Certainly dick moves like Shelby's blanket holds are unpopular, but just blips on the radar in the grand scheme of things.)

Of course the economy is the big question, but like SpaceGhost, I'm unconvinced that joblessness in particular will be much improved. If there's significant improvement, then that will certainly make a big difference. If indeed things get much better, he can safely pass the first year or so to Dubya.

Quote:
It also doesn't hurt that Republicans are still deeply unpopular, and the "front-runners" for 2012 are all damaged goods. Palin is a moron, Romney flip-flops (and has a religion problem), Jindal can't speak (also... a religion problem), Huckabee is kook (although I kinda like him), Pawlenty has no personality and Gingrich is a nightmare.

To beat an incumbent, you have to give people a reason to vote for you. Currently, the Republicans can only say, "Democrats are bad!" but have offered up nothing as an alternative. At best, they'll run a Kerry-style campaign.


For a viable Republican campaign, I'd expect to see a combination of bashing "socialist" Obama on his spending, deficit, and "radical" positions (including healthcare) while fielding a candidate with gubernatorial experience and in-state accomplishments to contrast with the Dems' perceived failures. Romney, for instance, has fiscal conservative credibility but can also point at the Massachusetts health reform law. He's also moderate in the right places (e.g. energy, environment) and conservative in the right places (e.g. same-sex marriage, which might infuriate me personally, but is still the popular position and a niche issue at that). Perhaps religion really is his Achilles' heel, especially in the primaries, but a Daniels or Huckabee could run a similar campaign without the stigma.


I don't see a Palin, Jindal, or Gingrich running or winning, both for the reasons you mention and because they're frankly too conservative.

Quote:
Approval ratings for congress mean nothing, by the way. The followup question should always be, "but how do you feel about your congress person?"


As far as individual seats are concerned, I certainly agree with you. That said, I've been interpreting the low approval ratings (particularly among independents) as dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership in general, though I could be wrong. Of course, even if I'm right, it may not rub off on Obama.

Finally, I'm not saying that I predict a GOP win by any means (it's far too early to tell, I think), but it certainly doesn't look like a slam dunk for the Dems at this point.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
Energy, taxes and..and..lift America!

The world is 6000 years old. 100.000 dollars please.

What's the matter, why's the world laughing?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd lay at least even odds that she doesn't even run.

I think Palin has found her ideal position right where she is. She's making a lot of money, she has a ready audience and she gets to control who she talks to and what the conversation is about. My hunch is that after the taste she had of a presidential campaign she's not going to go anywhere near it, although she'll continue to hint that she might.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.