Palin in 2012?
(updated below)
Given that the election is far from over, this entire conversation is more than a little premature, but I'm going to wade in anyway.
There's been a lot of talk lately about Sarah Palin's chances of becoming the GOP standard-bearer in 2012 if McCain loses in two weeks. Marc Ambinder thinks she has a pretty good shot at becoming the nominee and makes the case here.
I'm not at all convinced. While there's little doubt that Palin is very popular in certain GOP circles, her fan club is artificially inflated right now and her pool of conservative detractors is artificially small. There are a number of conservatives who are holding their tongues right now because they don't want to further damage John McCain's chances. If McCain loses, the GOP will quickly descend into recriminations mode. Many conservatives who have been holding back thus far will unload their frustrations about Palin.
Many Republicans, both inside and outside of the McCain campaign, will blame Palin for his loss. McCain loyalists from inside the campaign will dish out all sorts of embarrassing behind-the-scenes anecdotes about Palin's performance during the campaign. It will not be flattering. And the more Palin tries to distance herself from McCain or blame the loss on him, the more damaging stories about her will be leaked.
Moreover, the GOP tends to quickly distance itself from losing candidates and campaigns. Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush had very little influence in GOP circles following their losses. Palin will have a hard time distancing herself from this campaign.
Furthermore, parties out of power tend to gravitate toward perceived winners. Republican strategists can read polls. Many of them understand that Palin has gone over like a lead balloon on independents and Democrats, that she is seen as a joke to much of the population. They know that you generally don't get a second chance to make a first impression. When it comes time to nominate a new leader in 2012, they'll do what both parties have generally done when they're desperate to return to power, they'll nominate someone who is perceived to be "electable," someone who can credibly claim to have cross-over appeal. Palin will have a very hard time making that case to GOP primary voters, not to mention GOP power brokers and big donors.
And finally, I think Marc and others overlook Palin's obvious limitations as a candidate. They assume that, given enough time, she can study and become sufficiently conversant on national issues to present herself as a credible presidential candidate. I don't think that's the case. Her communication skills are vastly over-rated, and I've seen nothing that makes me think she'd ever be capable of mastering the issues to the degree necessary to present herself as a credible alternative to Obama (or whoever her GOP rivals turn out to be). You can't fake intelligence.
If Palin launches a run at the White House in a few years, you can bet that the bulk of the GOP establishment will scramble to back someone else. They will not trust the GOP's future in her hands. They'll get behind someone like Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney.
My prediction is this. If Obama wins, Palin's star will fade very quickly. There may be some who push her to run for president in the next cycle (just like there were some who urged Dan Quayle to do the same), but her campaign won't get anywhere. The GOP will have moved on. They'll nominate Bobby Jindal in 2012. He'll be the anti-Obama.
UPDATED: Noam Scheiber at TNR echoes my skepticism and adds some additional reasons to think Palin 2012 is a non-starter. I completely agree. I'll take that bet with anyone.
Given that the election is far from over, this entire conversation is more than a little premature, but I'm going to wade in anyway.
There's been a lot of talk lately about Sarah Palin's chances of becoming the GOP standard-bearer in 2012 if McCain loses in two weeks. Marc Ambinder thinks she has a pretty good shot at becoming the nominee and makes the case here.
I'm not at all convinced. While there's little doubt that Palin is very popular in certain GOP circles, her fan club is artificially inflated right now and her pool of conservative detractors is artificially small. There are a number of conservatives who are holding their tongues right now because they don't want to further damage John McCain's chances. If McCain loses, the GOP will quickly descend into recriminations mode. Many conservatives who have been holding back thus far will unload their frustrations about Palin.
Many Republicans, both inside and outside of the McCain campaign, will blame Palin for his loss. McCain loyalists from inside the campaign will dish out all sorts of embarrassing behind-the-scenes anecdotes about Palin's performance during the campaign. It will not be flattering. And the more Palin tries to distance herself from McCain or blame the loss on him, the more damaging stories about her will be leaked.
Moreover, the GOP tends to quickly distance itself from losing candidates and campaigns. Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush had very little influence in GOP circles following their losses. Palin will have a hard time distancing herself from this campaign.
Furthermore, parties out of power tend to gravitate toward perceived winners. Republican strategists can read polls. Many of them understand that Palin has gone over like a lead balloon on independents and Democrats, that she is seen as a joke to much of the population. They know that you generally don't get a second chance to make a first impression. When it comes time to nominate a new leader in 2012, they'll do what both parties have generally done when they're desperate to return to power, they'll nominate someone who is perceived to be "electable," someone who can credibly claim to have cross-over appeal. Palin will have a very hard time making that case to GOP primary voters, not to mention GOP power brokers and big donors.
And finally, I think Marc and others overlook Palin's obvious limitations as a candidate. They assume that, given enough time, she can study and become sufficiently conversant on national issues to present herself as a credible presidential candidate. I don't think that's the case. Her communication skills are vastly over-rated, and I've seen nothing that makes me think she'd ever be capable of mastering the issues to the degree necessary to present herself as a credible alternative to Obama (or whoever her GOP rivals turn out to be). You can't fake intelligence.
If Palin launches a run at the White House in a few years, you can bet that the bulk of the GOP establishment will scramble to back someone else. They will not trust the GOP's future in her hands. They'll get behind someone like Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney.
My prediction is this. If Obama wins, Palin's star will fade very quickly. There may be some who push her to run for president in the next cycle (just like there were some who urged Dan Quayle to do the same), but her campaign won't get anywhere. The GOP will have moved on. They'll nominate Bobby Jindal in 2012. He'll be the anti-Obama.
UPDATED: Noam Scheiber at TNR echoes my skepticism and adds some additional reasons to think Palin 2012 is a non-starter. I completely agree. I'll take that bet with anyone.
posted by A.L. at 9:08 AM
27 Comments:
I agree with this, and more: I think her mainstream political career is pretty much over, and if she tries for another term as Governor of Alaska she'll lose, and big. She's given such an embarrassingly awful performance that nobody except the wackos will want to touch her with a ten-foot pole. Even on the Right she'll be labeled as the one who tanked McCain's chances (probably ignoring that McCain was responsible for this choice).
Maybe she has a future as a spokes-model for the Alaska Independence Party. But as a serious candidate for any meaningful position? No way no how.
You forgot the most damning fact against her of all: Bill Kristol thinks she's got a shot at 2012.
She might overcome many of the other strikes against her, but I just don't see how she can fight the curse of Kristol.
perhaps one of the bright spots for the gop this election cycle is that palin gives them the ability to put the wingnuts back in their box for a while. i'm real optimistic about a shift to the left from both parties.
i'd guess your right that sarah palin will be religated to the bleachers.
Indeed, this will set the Right back for years, even decades. Hopefully. Just this AM I heard commentary on the radio referring to Palin's enthusiastic supporters as "the core" of the Republican Party. If the Republicans can't elect serious candidates without depending on this awful, foaming-at-the-mouth hate-mongering crowd, then they are in real trouble.
One positive side effect of this, I think, is that 'real' conservatives will realize that voting Democratic is more in line with their values than voting Republican. That's actually been the case for a while, but it took a Palin to drive the point home.
In fact, this is the case with the conservatives and Republicans I know personally and at work. Not one of them (so far as I've learned) is voting for McCain/Palin, and most if not all are voting for Obama.
Bobby Jindal? Really?
True enough that Republicans dislike a loser in general, but it's by no means a universal law that they never support damaged goods. (Richard Nixon, anyone?) And this year's election is shaping up to be such a traumatic loss for the GOP that some deep-seated Republican instincts will have to give way over the next four years. Given Palin's genuinely enthusiastic support from the Base -- and the fact that McCain is not well-liked by the Base -- I think it's likely that they'll swallow their aversion to supporting a loser, pin the loss on McCain, and rally 'round Sarah.
That's certainly a more likely outcome than seeing the Base get over their racial prejudices and support Jindal. What George W Bush and Karl Rove are leaving in their wake is more tribe than political party, and a tribe will naturally rally around a born female member of said tribe before they let an eager-to-please outsider lead.
So if the choices are Palin and Jindal, I've got to put my money on Palin. Add in Huckabee, Cornyn, etc., and it should be quite diverting. [Too bad (for him) that Mitt's a Mormon and not a Baptist, otherwise it'd be no contest.]
Sarah Palin is a very angry person. She has no interest in (political issue X), but she comes alive when she says hateful things about the opposition's position on (political issue X). The Republican base will not let go of her easily. So she will probably have a big role in politics, but I agree that she's a long shot as a 2012 nominee. Unless she wins in 2008!
Ambinder just manufactures
conventional wisdom.
Palin is great at hating stuff in a deceptively sweet way.
AI - I hope you watched
the hearings today with
Greenspan.
Republicans like Mica from
Florida were kvetching
about Fannie and Freddie
causing all the problems.
Bilbray was a complete
moron too.
AI,
If you get a chance - try to post something about John Mica's performance
today at the Greenspan hearings held by Waxman.
It was pretty odd and he said some strange things about Fannie and Freddie and Obama's link to all
the evil etc.
As far as Palin goes, I don't have much confidence in the ability of people to predict who a Party's candidate will be four years out. If I had been put on the spot four years back I'd have said Clinton and McCain, but I would have been entirely without confidence in my guess.
That said I’m predicting that in 2012 we'll be seeing Obama vs Romney. Obama because he'll be the current President running for re-election. And Romney for a lot of reasons.
First and foremost, Republicans seem to be able to comeback after a failed Presidential bid and run again. Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush all achieved office after running once and losing. I'm not aware of a single Democrat who managed that this Century, but I digress.
Second, despite of his Mormonism, Romney had a real chance of getting the GOP nod this year. He was the favorite of all the wingnut gasbags. The Real Conservative. After McCain flames out, there's going to be a $#!+load of people looking for a scapegoat. It's axiomatic the Conservatism can't fail; it can only be failed. "McCain wasn't Conservative enough. He held back and didn't tell everyone just how bad the liberal/socialist/communist/terroist Obama was. He didn’t make a good enough case for how tax cuts would have gotten us out of the Recession. etc." And there will be Mutiple Choice Mitt with an established record of being willing to repeat any Right-Wing talking point to show that he's really one of the Real Americans and that everything that he said and did contrary to that in when he was governor of Massachusetts was him just putting aside his real beliefs to get elected. But now he can say what he really thinks, and (surprise) it just happens to be a perfect summary of the Right-wing world view.
That plus his demonstrated willingness to say or do anything to be president will be a major benefit in securing the support of various moneyed interests that are traditionally needed to make a successful bid for the presidency
I'd love to believe Palin would be the 2012 nominee, but I think she's a (well dressed) dead moose as soon as this election mercifully ends. She will go for the money right away ... have a book ghost written, become a tv pundit, do some "consulting" for right wing groups, make fashion ads, etc. She is a grasping small-time operator and will be entirely focused on cashing in.
It just occurred to me that Palin could be a huge problem for the GOP, much like Hillary could have been a huge problem for the Dems.
In the end, Hillary put the party before herself, but she could very easily have wedged the PUMAs away from everyone else if she'd been inclined to do that.
I have the feeling that Palin might not be so selfless, and that could be a big problem. She'll be able to extract some pretty huge concessions on that basis.
I'd LOVE to see Romney, Guiliani, Jindal,Snowe and whoever have a go at her in a Republican primary ! Are you kidding? The worst case scenario is she gets to be nominee through the VP slot ! We don't get to see the other Republicans shoot at her from helicopters.
Palin has got a large group of base supporters if she wants them. But enough to win the GOP nomination?
I don't think so. And this is why: I continue to believe that the next republican primaries will be heavily influenced by who was for and who was against the $700 billion bailout. McCain's last chance to steal this election was to come out against the bailout.
This is why the bailout is key: after Obama and the Dems take over and the economy continues to sink the GOP will start to blame it on government intervention. Nobody will believe them, but its the only card they have to play. The bailout battle has been somewhat forgotten in the heat of the election, but I predict it will come back as the true litmus test for conservatives. Who was for it, and who was against it?
Unfortunately for her, Palin is tied directly to McCain and the bailout.
Huckabee was pretty vocally against it.
Romney, I don't remember him saying anything, as is his modus operandi.
So I see it this way: Palin is strong among the Limbaugh and "Obama is a Muslim" crowd. That's not enough to win.
Romney takes the big business and wall street people.
And Huckabee rails against the bailout and big government while still offering his trademark compassionate message, and at the same time stealing southern evangelicals and joe six packs away from Palin.
Who wins out of all of this?
I think it would be close. But I'd put Huckabee at the top of the heat narrowly.
I agree that Jindal in 2012 would be a fair bet; unless Obama proves to be very popular in office, in which case the Republicans would be more inclined to provide the proverbial lamb to the slaughter vis-a-vis Dole in 96 - in which case we're probably looking at Romney or Huckabee for 2012.
Names to look out for? The aforementioned plus Pawlenty and Sanford. I also give an outside chance to Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell should the Republicans do a volte face and aim to be seen to be "making amends" (comparable to what the British Conservatives did under David Cameron). This might sound silly but there are already calls by many self-professed "real conservatives" to (I'm paraphrasing) "take back their party" -- I definitely foresee the GOP going through something of an ideological civil war for the next four years, with libertarians and Goldwater Republicans on one side, and paleocons and neocons on the other. Whoever wins that battle will probably determine the nominee for 2012 - though Jindal would probably be something of a compromise candidate.
But as I said, only if the GOP really thinks they can win in 2012 - Jindal is arguably their only rising star at the moment (I consider Palin to be neither rising nor a star) so I'm not entirely sure if he or they would want to hurt his chances with an ill-fated early Presidential bid.
That said, four years is a long time in politics - not many people would have predicted Obama being the nominee four years ago. Well, I did, but then I'm awesome like that.
Bobby Jindal would be really scary! He's a hard line right winger, but smarter than Palin and more genuinely charismatic. The only reason I doubt that he would get the nod is that he is a person of color, and though it is the elephant in the room for the GOP, racism, and fear of 'the other' is a big factor for their "core constituency" whether they come right out and say it or not.
Speaking of race
Here's the NY Times endorsement of Lincoln
in 1860:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/timeline/lincoln-1860.pdf
The analogy with the British conservatives is a good one. After defeat by Tony Blair, the Tories went through three or four leaders in a short time.
Basically, after being dominant for so long, they could not assimilate a catastrophic defeat and learn from it. One camp argued that they were not right-wing enough; the other (which eventually won) said we need our own Tony Blair to revamp the party top to bottom for a new century.
Something like this is probable for the GOP. People like Palin and Romney might argue that the party should have gone even more conservative (and aggressive; the non-appearance of Jeremiah Wright is a major talking point).
It is hard to see who can lead the argument from the other side. All prominent GOP leaders are tied in some way to neoconservatism or fundamentalism, both of which will probably become electoral liabilities. Republicans have lost the brand of being "best on foreign policy" and being "best for jobs and the economy". Who will lead them back to being a "big tent" party? I have a feeling we do not know because that person is possibly staring his or her policial career and is still obscure.
They will probably need an Obama-type (thoughtful, intelligent, calm, a lot of things Palin is not). If Obama stars (as we expect), Obama + Presidential prestige, accompanied by some economic and foreign policy successes, will be a very, very formidable opponent.
Frankly, I do not see the GOP candidate at the moment who could stand up to him. Obama has grown and become stronger even since his battle with Hilary Clinton, which in many ways was even tougher than the battle with McCain.
I expect after the election, Palin will attempt to cash in on her 'fame' as a TV pundit, but she won't have the ability to think on her feet that the job requires. She may be able to wangle a job at Fox after she loses reelection in Alaska, maybe on a show with two-three other talking heads who can cover for her ignorance, and that will suffice for her dwindling number of swooning fans, who will build website-shrines to her.
By 2012, she will be a has-been, a whatever-happened-to answer.
What if Obama wins, the economy collapses, more and more soldiers die, and there are more attacks within the US? None of it will be (completely) his fault, but we are a pretty stupid country. What happens then?
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
one more reason palin won't be a candidate in 2012 is that she will almost certainly host some sort of daytime TV in the next few years. Someone will offer. She will be unable to resist. The ratings will be pretty darn good, at least to begin, and she'll continue to say things that pretty much disqualify her as a viable candidate, but which suit her very well as a TV hostess, and everything will be as it should be.
The refutation of the "Sarah will study hard for 4... umm 2.5 years" point is a good one. One question that no Republican has been able to spell out for me is why Palin didn't bother intently watching at least one GOP primary debate. Seriously, 2 hours of watching 8 or 9 Republicans debating national and foreign policy issues from a GOP perspective would have been a great jump start in understanding the issues of the day. An understanding that Palin clearly never had at the time of her selection by McCain.
"What if Obama wins, the economy collapses, more and more soldiers die, and there are more attacks within the US? None of it will be (completely) his fault, but we are a pretty stupid country. What happens then?"
Well, if the economy collapses in short order, I think people will understand that it is the fault of George W. Bush. Obama should be careful about attending the Nov 15th summit, or in any way taking responsibility for what will be the actions of the Bush administration up until January 20th. He has made no commitment to go, and that is wise.
FDR in 1932 was absolutely hands off until Inauguration Day, despite many attempts by Hoover to involve him in decision making. If Bush wants the Democrats to take over, then let him and Cheney resign and install Nancy Pelosi as Acting President until January.
I think Obama will back the SOFA with Iraq, and accelerate it. I expect to hear more about Special Forces activities on the Afghan-Pakistan border. There could be attacks in the US (it is always possible) but it is extremely unlikely. More likely is a major Taliban attack within Afghanistan on a US base.
Joe Biden has hinted at unpopular decisions in the first year of an Obama administration. It is critical for Obama that the economy recover by 2011 in time for the 2012 election.
An incumbent President with economic buoyancy is extremely hard to beat. Obama must make sure not be Jimmy Carter. With good majorities in House and Senate this time out, the Democrats will stand a good chance of retaining their gains in 2010, though we can expect the blue tide to recede somewhat.
The economy will probably hit rock bottom in the next 6 months, partly on Bush's watch, but should start recovering from then.
Besides, watching Obama over the last year, he strikes me as a class act, the makings of not just a good President but (we dare to hope) up there with Washington, Lincoln, FDR, TDR and Jefferson . To quote from another place and another time "The man and the hour have met."
So our friend Andy has, in reality, pulled the Ashley Todd Story (although he claims it is sill there without pictures... it's not).
Here's what's there:
Re: Assaulted Volunteer Story [Andy McCarthy]
In view of the developments noted by Jonah, I have removed the picture and allusion to mutilation from my prior post. I have not deleted the post because I am not trying to purge the fact that I appear to have jumped on the news report too early. I'm not apologizing, because the story is news and it would have been discussed whether I'd posted on it or not. But I do wish I had waited until we could be reasonably sure it was true.
Related to what I wrote earlier (vis-a-vis a possible "civil war" in the GOP):
"Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3260074/Republican-fears-of-historic-Obama-landslide-unleash-civil-war-for-the-future-of-the-party.html
I hasten to add that the Telegraph is quite a right-wing paper.
I think this scenario is inevitable if the Republicans lose big in November. Toby already mentioned it, but there'll doubtlessly be those in the party who suggest they lost because they weren't right-wing enough. If they get to drive the agenda then the Republicans will be doomed to electoral wilderness for a decade.
I think the only hope of really taking away a 2nd Obama term is to put Jindal on teh ticket. He's insanely smart and charasmatic- he's right-wing but really a decent politician. I'd like to see Jindal-Romney or Jindal-Guiliani would be even better.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home