• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Palin's Media Whore Bus Tour

Palin is good for raising money in heavily conservative states and helping people in the 2010 primaries was her high point. Any republican that thinks she is the future of the party is naive and needs to do a little more research.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
You guys talking about the conservative friend you know who will vote for Obama if a Tea Party candidate wins the nomination is super convincing. Because at the end of the day it won't be about the economy. Meh. It's going to be about the stupid bastards who demolished the Dems in the 2010 elections and their insane desire for smaller government and less spending.

Nut jobs.

This is going to be the most entertaining election in a long, long time.
Click to expand...

More than likely, this is going to be Clinton/Dole redux.
 
Hello said:
Palin is good for raising money in heavily conservative states and helping people in the 2010 primaries was her high point. Any republican that thinks she is the future of the party is naive and needs to do a little more research.
Click to expand...

And she was so successful in 2010 at ushering in Tea Party candidates you think that she's done. That makes sense because the economy is really rebounding and the same people who voted in the mid-terms are going to sit out 2012, right?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
More than likely, this is going to be Clinton/Dole redux.
Click to expand...

I would not argue against that if the current stable of stiffs is the best the Republicans can offer. The Republican establishment truly has their head up their ass. Mitt, while capable, is a snoozefest and he'll never get past his health care history. He's like Obama-lite.

It's bleak, I have to admit.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
More than likely, this is going to be Clinton/Dole redux.
Click to expand...

yeah, i think that is what it should be. but the landscape matters, particularly when an incumbent is on the ballot.

but, as the NYT noted today, no President since FDR has won reelection with unemployment above 7.2%. That was the number when Reagan won in '84, but the trend had been positive for a year, and RR was getting some credit for it.

Others in this position--Carter, Ford, Bush I--all lost.

We're currently at 9%.

The opponent matters too, but i would not be sleeping well trying to win a national election with that sort of number.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
And she was so successful in 2010 at ushering in Tea Party candidates you think that she's done. That makes sense because the economy is really rebounding and the same people who voted in the mid-terms are going to sit out 2012, right?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a midterm and a general, specifically regarding which block of voters determines the winner, given the higher turnout. In midterms, the stronger base will win because of low turnout. Enter Palin. But in general election years, the middle rules, because they show up in significant numbers and usually aren't interested in voting for the fringes. So Palin serves well in one scenario but poorly in the other. That's why she was so useful in 2010, but will a GOP hindrance in 2012 (unless she's kept away from message completely and is used purely as a fundraiser).

Tea Party candidates won't win in high turnout years because the voting power of the fringe is diluted and the middle isn't interested. The GOP has to avoid putting a fringe candidate through their primary, because it won't play in the general election.
 
Last edited:
i am also an adherent to the idea that 2008 was a weird year, and the lopsided result was the product of a confluence of unique factors, and not indicative of the modern electorate.

when you look at the tightness of 2000 and 2004, and what i think will be a very tight 2012, i think we'll see the 2008 outcome as somewhat of an outlier.
 
TheShot said:
yeah, i think that is what it should be. but the landscape matters, particularly when an incumbent is on the ballot.

but, as the NYT noted today, no President since FDR has won reelection with unemployment above 7.2%. That was the number when Reagan won in '84, but the trend had been positive for a year, and RR was getting some credit for it.

Others in this position--Carter, Ford, Bush I--all lost.

We're currently at 9%.

The opponent matters too, but i would not be sleeping well trying to win a national election with that sort of number.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, but there is no Reagan, Clinton, etc. for the opposition to rally behind. He'll get by that unemployment number against this field. But he'll face two Pub Houses.
 
True, there is a big difference between mid-terms and general elections. I know that.

What liberals and the beltway establishment like to ignore is that the so-called Tea Party is not, in fact, a party at all. It is a philosophy. And the people who support the philosophy are far from "fringe."

If Democrats don't get that they have real problems in 2012.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Oh I agree, but there is no Reagan, Clinton, etc. for the opposition to rally behind. He'll get by that unemployment number against this field. But he'll face two Pub Houses.
Click to expand...

i'd argue that only reagan was "rallied around," and then only late. (the race was nearly even in October, and not until his debate performance did RR open a lead that grew by leaps and bounds all the way to Election Day. The electorate wanted an alternative to Carter, but needed to be convinced RR was up to the job)

Carter was not exactly an inspiring figure in 1976. (though one can easily argue that the result has as much to do with Ford's mistakes and Watergate fatigue as the economy) and Clinton was about the Dem's 27th choice in 1992--and then only received 43% of the vote.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
And she was so successful in 2010 at ushering in Tea Party candidates you think that she's done. That makes sense because the economy is really rebounding and the same people who voted in the mid-terms are going to sit out 2012, right?
Click to expand...

you need to stop watching nalin' palin and realize the future of the party.

1. she won't win the nomination
2. rubio, christie, jindal, cantor, and jindal are more interesting, more intelligent, and better choices for leadership in the republican party.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
True, there is a big difference between mid-terms and general elections. I know that.

What liberals and the beltway establishment like to ignore is that the so-called Tea Party is not, in fact, a party at all. It is a philosophy. And the people who support the philosophy are far from "fringe."

If Democrats don't get that they have real problems in 2012.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party can't beat Obama, it can only damage the Pawlenty or Romney brand so badly in the primary that they lose any hope in the general. The Tea Party is vigorous, but they harm as much as they help, as they did in RI and NV last cycle. The GOP has to move to the middle to win the battlegrounds.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
The Tea Party can't beat Obama, it can only damage the Pawlenty or Romney brand so badly in the primary that they lose any hope in the general. The Tea Party is vigorous, but they harm as much as they help, as they did in RI and NV last cycle. The GOP has to move to the middle to win the battlegrounds.
Click to expand...

So, you're ready to make the call. Obama is a lock?
 
Obama is a strong favorite against any of the GOP candidates that have declared, or are known to be likely to declare. Without a substantial intervening event of some kind, or a catastrophic economic collapse, he's a safe bet, IMO.

There are no locks in politics, but if you'd asked whether I'd wager on it today, I'd say yes.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
True, there is a big difference between mid-terms and general elections. I know that.

What liberals and the beltway establishment like to ignore is that the so-called Tea Party is not, in fact, a party at all. It is a philosophy. And the people who support the philosophy are far from "fringe."

If Democrats don't get that they have real problems in 2012.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the Tea Partiers are the best judge of their own political stature. The Catholic Church thought that the Earth was the center of the universe for quite a long time -- even burned a few heretics who suggested that it might be on the "fringe". We all know how that turned out.
 
Hello said:
you need to stop watching nalin' palin and realize the future of the party.

1. she won't win the nomination
2. rubio, christie, jindal, cantor, and jindal are more interesting, more intelligent, and better choices for leadership in the republican party.
Click to expand...

Cantor is an absolute douchebag, but I'm in his voting district, and he will never lose his seat.
 
Hello said:
Palin is good for raising money in heavily conservative states and helping people in the 2010 primaries was her high point. Any republican that thinks she is the future of the party is naive and needs to do a little more research.
Click to expand...

Palin is good for raising money from old rich white males that think they might have a chance to have sex with her based on the amount of their donation.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Palin is heartily disliked by the majority of the population primarily because her standard operating procedure is to belittle, scorn, and ridicule anyone that doesn't fully subscribe to her fringe brand of hard right conservatism. This aggressive egotism, when combined with a pretty obvious lack of intellectual firepower to back it up, is perhaps the most obnoxious brew of personality traits a person can have. Arrogant ignorance draws disfavor like flies to honey. Add in the fact that she can't stop making gaffes at every turn, and yes, she is a magnet for disdain and mockery. But it's pretty much self-inflicted (though certainly not wholly).

She's also one of the few factors that can absolutely sink the GOP in the next election.
Click to expand...


She's no John Edwards, that's for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top