Long story in Politico, Next for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin. On the one had Palin has not too hot fav vs. unfav. numbers. On the other hand the economy is likely to be stagnant leading up to 2012. I think the elite Republicans who ease grassroots populists away from the highest positions of power have to be very careful here: among the rank & file Sarah Palin’s intensity of following may be inversely correlated with the the nakedness of antipathy toward her from elites. Republican elites have been waiting for Palin to fumble to the point where she loses much of her core support. But this seems a case where the more she “fumbles” the more her core followers are reinforced in the righteousness of adhering to her cause, as she shows her humanity. On the other hand a Sarah Palin run for the highest office is probably one of the best ways for Democrats to guarantee massive turnout among their base in 2012.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Fun speculation, but I think an effort to stop Palin is a waste of time. My guess is that she will size up the Republican field and then throw her support to one of them in return for the V.P. spot.
When Palin toured “Going Rogue” she went to Michigan, Minnesota, Alabama,Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Florida, the Dakotas, plus one stop in Pennsylvania and one stop in Rochester, NY. Otherwise she completely avoided the northeast, the whole west coast, and any major urban book-buying area. Most of her signing venues were WalMarts or Sam’s Clubs. So the marketing department of HarperCollins obviously did a pretty shrewd job of determining where her fan base was to be found.
Palin has a new book coming out just before Thanksgiving. The book tour schedule hasn’t been released yet, but it will interesting to see if the scope is broadened, and whether that might be used to gauge any presidential ambitions she might have. She has to accept the fact that you can’t just appeal to the huntin’, fishin’, prayin’, and bad syntax crowd to win national office.
Oh, please. America is not going to elect someone who resigned her highest political office to become a professional Attention Whore.
Well, I don’t think so, either. What I wonder is if she’ll form a third party.
Randy- America isn’t going to elect her, but the question is whether she can do an O’Donnell and win the GOP nomination ahead of a more electable candidate.
She could guarantee Obama a second term.
I agree with Stephen – I thought immediately after the 2008 election that Palin would give the VP slot another try in 2012. Pair her with a stronger candidate next time around, and she would probably “shore up the base” and let the other person take care of the rest. On some level, even though she talks a good game, I do believe she’s aware of her limitations.
Not that I want her anywhere NEAR a position with national responsibilities, mind you. I’m just trying to take a realistic view of McCain’s Monster.
Well, I don’t think so, either. What I wonder is if she’ll form a third party.
if democrats offer her $100 million dollars, perhaps 🙂
The peculiar feature of most dictators and demagogues in the 20th Century and onward has been that same insistent, loud claim: “I’m a man of the people!” (or, simply put, “I’m You.”)
To claim superhuman status, like, say, in the leader cult of North Korea, is the exception rather than the rule. (In North Korea, children are being told fairy tales about the divine birth of their leader.)
That is precisely what frightens me about Sarah Palin and her lesser imitators: The “I’m a man/woman of the people” strategy has been proven successful before. And she uses it very consistently.
And her deliberate fostering of resentment against a nebulously defined “elite” which has supposedly taken the power away from nebulously defined “real Americans” sounds eerily familiar…
Where have heard before that kind of paranoid conspiracy thinking, that a small minority secretly controls a country, and the “real” people must rise up and let “one of them” seize power? Where, and when have we heard that before…?
These naysayer comments are quite funny to read, especially if they are put in the context of an arc. The comment style or substance doesn’t really change much over time regardless of the successes that Palin continues to pile up. Many critics were sure that she had no future after the election, after her resignation, after her book was published, when she started endorsing candidates, etc. The predictions always remain the same.
Now, if her critics have been so wrong about her power and influence in the past, then why should people listen to them now when they predict that she can’t win the nomination and she will guarantee Obama a 2nd term?
If Palin can best her Republican challengers in the primaries, then she’ll have survived a fairly rigorous process for the entirety of the media will have focused on her performances so as to amplify every little gaffe and her challengers will have subjected her to scorching attacks and laid traps for her to walk into.
It’s as simple as this, if Palin enters the race, she either mounts a credible campaign in the primaries and is competitive or she fumbles and is not competitive. If she comes out on top, then it would seem that her conservative critics are arguing against a straw-woman, some caricature of Palin that they cling to that is not supported by contemporary evidence and my prediction is that the criticisms won’t change because the criticisms are rarely informed by contemporary evidence. If she bests, or holds her own, against Mitch Daniels or Mitt Romney on fiscal issues, then to continue to think of her as an Alaska Hillbilly really speaks to the critic’s own biases. If she loses the primary contest, then the problem of Palin being the face on the ticket evaporates.
As for a contest between Palin and Obama, Palin’s approval ratings today have almost no bearing on a future choice that boils down to Palin OR Obama. If public perception is cast in stone then we wouldn’t be seeing the variance we see in Presidential approval ratings. We wouldn’t be seeing Bush’s reputation improving. The highly visible primary season will make or break her reputation and predictions should be made on the best data and models available and relying on perceptions 2 years out versus perceptions 1 year out or 6 months out is basically just a combination of confirmation bias and wish fulfillment.
christ. can’t you be succinct? we know what you’re going to say.
TangoMan (aka christ), are you claiming SP can hold her own on fiscal issues? I’ve not once seen her hold A SecularRight level discussion of the issue.
TangoMan (aka christ), are you claiming SP can hold her own on fiscal issues? I’ve not once seen her hold A SecularRight level discussion of the issue.
I’ll be succinct.
1.) If she can’t, then you have nothing to worry about.
2.) I’ve seen her go quite in-depth on the minutia of oil economics, oil geology, and other topics which had hearing on Alaska politics, so I’m assuming that if she can master the arcana of some complex topics, then she can master the arcana of other complex topics. Again, back to point 1. When the time comes to display her mastery, she either does or doesn’t. If she does, do her critics revise their opinions or just keep on clinging to what they want to believe.
TangoMan,
Please provide VIDEO evidence of $arah Palin going “quite in-depth” on ANY subject, and I’ll immediately send you $100K.
Tango, I think you’re ignoring the fact that Palin has deliberately set out to make herself a polarizing figure. Reagan didn’t do this; nor did either of the Bushes. All three made it clear that they wanted to represent ALL Americans, not just “the peasants with pitchforks”, to borrow Pat Buchanan’s deathless phrase.
Palin is quite specific about the kind of people whom she considers to be “real Americans”. I don’t think I fit her definition, nor, I suspect, would any secular rightist. And you have to face the fact that this is not an attitude that will win over independents.
susan, not sure about the deliberation. how do we know this? i think one could make a plausible case that she is literally being who she is. her polarization may be less plan, and more nature. i think christine o’donnell has a softer tinge and so would be less polarizing. sarah is good looking, but in a harder edged manner, and her voice isn’t as sweet. all superficial, but of a piece.
also, from what little i know reagan did attempt to polarize in 1976, right? he was a representative of the ‘radical right’ in the republican party.
to make a more general point, assertions of motivation or inner agency are going to be tendentious.
Razib, the point about Reagan is a good one, but it seems to me that it was an ideological stance that he radicalized or polarized, rather than one based on cultural (in the high culture sense), financial, sociological, educational, and religious factors. (I could be very wrong about this; I wasn’t paying much attention in 1976.) Reagan wasn’t, as far as I can recall, overtly trying to set one group of potential supporters against another group of potential supporters. Certainly by 1980 he was doing outreach to every Republican and independent he could.
I think Reagan always tried to unify Republicans, even while herding them to the right. Palin, it seems to me, is trying to disunite Republicans by saying that if you come from the northeast or the west coast or any major urban area, have ever pahked your cah in Hahvahd Yahd (not actually possible, except on moving-in day and a very few select other occasions), and aren’t religious (preferably Protestant fundamentalist), then you’re not, and can’t be, a Republican and a conservative. This is not, as I say, an endearing stance.
I also question how long she can carry on the routine of being a victim of the “lamestream media”, as she calls it. She’s been victimized into great prominence and about 12 million dollars in book sales and tv appearances.
well, how about thinking of things bottom-up? the republican coalition in 1980 was very different from the one in 2008, and the one which will drive action in 2012. sarah palin and ronald reagan might be different in part because they were getting different “market signals” from the consumers of republican politicians 🙂 i don’t believe this is the whole story myself, but i think we need to consider that political personalities are unconsciously moved along by macrosocial forces. george h. w. bush, ronald reagan, al gore jr. and jesse jackson all flipped on abortion over their political career (first two going from pro-choice and/or tolerant of abortion rights to pro-life, the other two in the inverse direction). i used to think that these switches were totally mercenary, and in their own minds they hadn’t changed (i knew a guy in the 1990s who was convinced that george h. w. bush was still secretly pro-choice), but my reading of psychology now suggests to me that they’ve probably convinced themselves of their new positions in a deep and sincere manner. and that was all driven by electoral realities.
Please provide VIDEO evidence of $arah Palin going “quite in-depth” on ANY subject, and I’ll immediately send you $100K.
First off, I had a much easier time finding this material way back before Palin came to national attention when I first did my assessment on her. Now all the searches yield Fox News footage and the old stuff is hard to find if you can’t remember the search particulars, but I did remember some specific interviews so I’ll tee them up.
Secondly, this discussion is going to turn on standards for what is considered “in-depth” so I’m operating under the assumption that I’ll never be seeing your $100K because even though she talks specifics like any other politician, it won’t be “in-depth” enough to qualify.
Here she is as a candidate for Governor discussing on radio the PPT proposal and at the 2:45 mark of the interview she notes that the Governor’s “retroactive incentives” in the bill are an oxymoron because you can’t incentivize an activity that has already occurred.
Here, at the 0:45 mark, she, off the cuff, starts referencing Article 9, Section 1, of the Alaska Constitution, as her authority to dispute the then current attempt to tie the fiscal hands of future Alaska legislatures to a proposed tax formula on oil revenue.
Here, at the 0:20 mark, she starts rattling off the the key provisions of AGIA, especially the requirement that the pipeline be open-access so that new industry players are not locked out of key transportation systems. Basically she’s talking about lowering the barriers to entry in the field and the importance of these provisions to the state of the industry and the State of Alaska.
She demonstrates that she has understanding of the Constitutional framework of governance, a level of understanding that far exceeds the understanding of the people she is campaigning against who are trying to implement unconstitutional provisions. She understands corruption when she sees it, she understands the oxymoronic nature of retroactive incentives, she understands what an oxymoron is and uses the term in a radio interview. She created, and backed, and signed, legislation which created an open environment and reduced industry barriers to entry.
I have no problem with any of these issues that she has advanced and I commend her for being on the right side of the issues, by my standards. She’s not just spouting homilies and talking points and mindless chatter, she’s demonstrating fairly sophisticated understanding of economics, constitutional governance, and logic.
fwiw, andrew sullivan linked to this article.
Two writers from Alaska’s Petroleum News, who’ve followed Palin from her days on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission wrote a book on her battles and adventures in public life.
The fact that it has only 5 reviews strongly suggests to me that many people are more interested in forming opinions based on narratives than forming opinions based on data, history and analysis, because to form an opinion on a narrative means that you don’t have to be bothered with, you know, actually looking in-depth at her performance by reading a book written by media reporters who focus on the oil industry.
“She’s smart, a quick study. Her adversaries biggest mistake is underestimating her intelligence, her understanding of issues. And she uses their arrogance against them.” – Dan Seamount, commissioner on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
“It’s as simple as this, if Palin enters the race, she either mounts a credible campaign in the primaries and is competitive or she fumbles and is not competitive. If she comes out on top, then it would seem that her conservative critics are arguing against a straw-woman”
It is possible she can win the nomination and the general electorate still think she is not qualified. Look at O’Donnell for an example.
I think your reasoning would make more sense if she had not resigned. She can change her image of being uninformed if she wants to. She can’t change the fact that she quit the most important job she had to be a cable TV commenter.
Well, for my part I will make a point of watching these links of Mrs. Palin when the time permits, later in the week. As of right now, my opinion is that she is quite capable of winning the GOP nomination and I can see her even besting Obama in the general election. My fear is that she’s not the best person for the job. (Though these in-depth discussions to which Tango links may ease my concerns.)
One thing that I think will determine her road to 2012 is how many of her endorsements are elected tomorrow.
Tango, I think you’re ignoring the fact that Palin has deliberately set out to make herself a polarizing figure. Reagan didn’t do this; nor did either of the Bushes. All three made it clear that they wanted to represent ALL Americans, not just “the peasants with pitchforks”, to borrow Pat Buchanan’s deathless phrase.
Palin is quite specific about the kind of people whom she considers to be “real Americans”. I don’t think I fit her definition, nor, I suspect, would any secular rightist. And you have to face the fact that this is not an attitude that will win over independents.
If I didn’t know better, I’d have thought Karl Rove wrote this. I thought most politicians “deliberately set out to make themselves polarizing figure.” “I’m for the working families; I support the middle class tax cuts; etc.”
Tomorrow, we’ll see how many Palin-backed candidates win their races. That should be a pretty good indication of how many independents were won over. Palin takes a lot of flack, but as far as I can tell it’s not coming from the independents.
Nice try, TangoMan, but you’re right: NONE of these qualify as being “in-depth.”
And anyone can prepare for discussions on a specific, narrowly-focused topic. I’ve yet to see $arah Palin SPONTANEOUSLY address any subject with anything remotely approaching expertise. She couldn’t even handle Katie Couric’s softballs, reverting instead to the role which seems to come most naturally: VICTIM (of the “lamestream media”).
Face it, she’s made for reality television: she’s all about strong emotions and opinions and the manipulation of both.
It is possible she can win the nomination and the general electorate still think she is not qualified. Look at O’Donnell for an example.
I think that there is merit to the concern that this dynamic may present itself but I don’t think it’s plausible.
Palin has a track record, good and bad. She’s only one of a handful of people in this century who unseated a Governor who was a member of her party and then won the election. She has legislative accomplishments. O’Donnell was a gadfly who was always running against Biden, basically the Republican candidate was a sacrificial lamb in Delaware. This year she got lucky. I don’t think that the stars will align like this for Palin in enough states to get her over the top.
I think your reasoning would make more sense if she had not resigned. She can change her image of being uninformed if she wants to. She can’t change the fact that she quit the most important job she had to be a cable TV commenter.
There are multiple paths to success. Palin’s accomplishments in office are, to my standards, more substantive than I’ve seen from other Governors who’ve served their entire term and in some cases from Governors who’ve served multiple terms. She brought to fruition a program which eluded her predecessors for 30 years.
How people view her resignation is probably not something that can be swayed by debate. You either understand and accept the reasoning or understand and reject the reasoning. Frankly, I haven’t come across anyone who acknowledges the the circumstances and made a plausible case that the better alternative was to punch the clock for another 16 months, that argument usually comes from people who minimize the disruption that was occupying a significant amount of her time.
And anyone can prepare for discussions on a specific, narrowly-focused topic.
Palin’s a living, breathing rorschach test for people. She’s discussing the nitty gritty of Alaska-centric topics. She’s invoking arguments based on Constitutional issues, logic, economics, and governance in order to advance her position, sure it’s all delivered in her peculiar manner of speech, but it indicates to me that she’s seeing things clearly, understands what’s wrong and what needs to be done, and is making the case for her position.
All that though is of little consequence because you can always concoct some new objection, in this case, she had time to prepare to talk about that topic. Please don’t be surprised that I don’t find your objection that compelling. This response simply indicates to me that goalposts will always be moved in order to preserve some people’s positions. Now, this dynamic may be especially damaging to Palin if she runs. The pertinent question is how sticky are people’s perceptions of Palin even when they are presented with information that invalidates the perception. If she performs will in the primaries against her challengers, will that matter or will she still be unpopular and thought of as a dim bulb?
I will explain myself as clearly as possible:
Sarah Palin is not politically dangerous because of the quality or substance of her “rational” arguments or accomplishments.
She is dangerous *specifically* because she deliberately whips up destructive passions in her followers. Because she wants to bring out the worst in people, and does.
People tend to miss this, because they focus too much on the “facts” and not enough on the “image”. Image does matter in the 21st century.
When I watch and hear Sarah Palin, the “image” she projects is one of permanently understated threat: “When I, the Woman of the People, the embodiment of Real America, takes charge, the Others will pay.”
And I wonder: Once in power, would she limit her threats to the “Other” inside America’s borders — or expand her belligerence to abroad?
I think Sarah Palin’s potential really is defined by the question of whether gravitas still matters in a Presidential election/primary campaign.
Obama, a fast climber with little experience, won against the old, respected Senate heavyweight with 25 years of experience in Congress. Obama beat out the former first lady who was also a more senior Senator, as well as a feature in America’s political life for about 15 years, in the primaries.
Palin, of course, takes that proposition to an extreme. Obama played the outsider but his credentials as a highly-educated, articulate academic from a diverse background certainly made him more than acceptable to the establishment and the broader educated class.
Palin’s political career has been short and there is basically nothing about her that would scream “Presidential material”. Her education is by Washingtonian standards sub-par, she is not known for intellectual pursuits. Her family and social
environment are plebeian if you are being kind.
Yet at the same time Palin has developed a brand that resonates with a lot of people. Her strategy is more akin to that of an entertainment celebrity than a politician. Ideologically she doesn’t strike me as that far away from a lot of GOP politicians, the difference is one of style, it’s going to be decided by brand vs gravitas.
Presidential elections are a snapshot, for millions of people it’s the only time they ever think about politics and thus they seldom are battles between two ideological camps trying to convince the nation of their point of view, they are generally personality-focused. But in the past there was a general notion of what is Presidential, what kind of man could be President, what disqualifies a man. This however has eroded as the elections of both G.W. Bush and Obama have shown – but is Palin going too far? That’s the real question, will the GOP primary voters still instinctively shy away from voting for a reality show star or has the move towards celebrity politics gone that far?
As someone upthread noted, Palin is politically astute, and she knows where her voters are, and how many of them there are. She’s teasing the press to keep herself relevant, but I’m thinking she won’t run, at least not seriously (if it balloons like Obama’s campaign, then all bets are off). She’ll keep herself in reserve for Mark Begich’s senate seat, which should be easy pickings for the Republican in 2014. She’s young enough to sweat out a decade.
Sage, Palin’s unfavorability rating with independents is quite high, at least according to the poll Razib cited.
As for how many of her candidates will win tonight…that may depend less on her endorsement than other factors. I don’t think Christine O’Donnell has the chance of a snowball in hell. A Palin endorsement probably isn’t going to push Fiorina over the top. Rand Paul probably didn’t need a Palin endorsement, nor did Kelly Ayotte. A Palin endorsement might conceivably hurt Sean Bielat, who’s running against Barney Frank.
Susan’s right about Palin’s effect in the general, but you can’t ignore her ability to play kingmaker. A lot candidates running were pushed over the edge by Palin’s help during the primaries, and Palin has been a big help in churning up voter interest and fundraising. The bigger question is whether Palin is aware of her own limitations or if we have a proper gauge of those limits ourselves.
Sarah Palin is a major force in the Tea Party, who’s potential she foresaw. The GOP elite is getting so nervous about her now, taking pot shots–it struck me so odd….but then I wondered what they are going to do about her in the next year or two. She’s not really one of the boys. But if they reject her, she could run as the Tea Party candidate, and split the vote. Then a democrat (like Hillary) would win. She is forcing the republicans to fall into step with the Tea Party mandate, for their own survival. If they don’t , they will lose ground to this powerful, growing movement, and could easily become the 3rd party. They are so afraid of this woman!. Nothing about her background is exceptional, she doesn’t have an Ivy League education. But as we’re seeing right now, an elite degree says nothing about intelligent leadership. Palin is self-made, not cookie-cutter, and seemingly born to be a leader. She’s the top draw in American politics. I’m always amazed by people who can’t bring themselves to see her power, if nothing else.
Well, if she does somehow get the nomination, then I am sure we’ll have “secular rightists” here urging us to vote for this deranged tongues-speaker (or did she give that up that “gift of the Spirit” for electability–I am not quite sure), the most unsecular major-party Presidential nominee in over 100 years.
You Betcha Mark! If it’s Palin vs Obama, I’ll be getting all mavericky.
For me, it depends on Palin’s take on foreign policy. If she’s still aligning with the world-savers at The Weekly Standard, I’ll vote 3rd Party. If she starts moving in Paul’s directions, then we can talk.
Anyhoo, I think the general elections took some wind out of her sails. Her candidates lost in NV and CA, and, worse, in her home state (assuming projections hold). Her power depended on people’s perceptions, and I think it took a hit. Of course, future events may obsolete this wild conjecture.
Her candidate lost in Delaware, too, big time. She didn’t do too badly with her endorsements, otherwise–although I could make a good case that they’d have won without her endorsements.
Obviously, but the DE candidate was always seen as a long shot, at best. O’Donnell’s loss wouldn’t have hurt Palin’s prestige as kingmaker. That was more about taking out Castle, who could have done a lot more to help himself. The loss in AK is severe, IMO, since it’s in her backyard. Murkowski stays in power and now has a grudge larger than their own home state. Palin has to shut up about it, too, lest she come off looking like a bad version of Desperate Housewives (which I wouldn’t put past her).
Well, “Desperate Housewives” may not be far behind, given that she’s doing a reality show for cable and her daughter is hoofing up a storm every week on “Dancing with the Stars”.
Yeah, I know, but if she goes down that road, that will further reduce her prestige and influence.
I think Palin is one of the few responsible candidates for Pres.
Her Drill Baby Drill Plank is the single most important tactic for pulling this country out of its depression. What part of that do some here not understand?
Calling her a whore and saying she brings out evil in people gives me pause to frequent this site.
Fair Warning: Sarah is wearing black in this video…and..since ODonnell wears black too..therefore….Sarah..is..a……..WITCH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iolgiIvfV-0
David Hume said:
among the rank & file Sarah Palin’s intensity of following may be inversely correlated with the the nakedness of antipathy toward her from elites
Did you mean to say directly correlated?
Palin slams a WSJ reporter for not reading the WSJ!
http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-vs-sudeep-reddy-2010-11
It appears this thread has ended in a checkmate.
Panglos, the argument about Palin isn’t about the substance of her ideas, but her presentation of them, her persona, and, to be blunt, some of her devotees. She has to attract independents in order to win national office, and so far, if you believe the polls, she hasn’t. That may change, but she appears to be not just alienating independents and conservative Democrats, but encouraging a split in the Republican party. It’s the cocktail party versus the country party and, even more loathsome, the “ruling class” versus real Americans. This is not a formula for winning elections.