Palin’s Extremely Long Shot At The Nomination
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Walter Shapiro makes a good observation that the GOP’s winner-take-all primary system improves the chances for a Palin nomination bid. There could be just enough true believers to push her over the edge in the early contests, at which point it would become increasingly difficult for rivals to catch up. After all, McCain benefited from a divided field and gained a prohibitive lead in the delegate count without ever winning more than 45% of the vote in any contested state. At first glance, this seems possible, but it isn’t going to work out this way.
There are a few reasons why this scenario for a Palin nomination is still extremely unlikely. The first is funding. If Palin is in so many ways a less serious candidate than Dan Quayle, it is worth remembering that Dan Quayle’s extremely brief flirtation with presidential politics in 1999 ended because he could not find enough people interested in backing him financially. When there was already more or less an establishment candidate in Bush, no national political figure other than McCain attempted to oppose him, and McCain’s insurgency that year collapsed quickly enough. It seems to me that Romney is shaping up to be the prohibitive favorite and heir-apparent, just as McCain effectively was going in to the primary contests. Aside from his own money, Romney is an effective fundraiser, and he has the experience and the connections from the last presidential run to make it more difficult for any other contenders to gets funds and endorsements. Republican primary voting does not reward insurgent candidates. Barring some unforeseen implosion, Romney will begin as the frontrunner and likely remain in that position. Any contest between Romney, the competent, wonkish technocrat, and Palin, who is the opposite of all these things, would result in a win for Romney.
Huckabee showed last year how far a charismatic politician benefiting from favorable media coverage could take a campaign that had little money and a small staff, but these were important factors in falling short almost everywhere outside the South. No doubt Palin could inspire a lot of people to volunteer on her behalf, much as Huckabee did, but that will not be sufficient. Palin is not going to have the favorable media coverage that Huckabee did, in part because she is not as good at handling the media. Where Huckabee used charm, she takes an entirely adversarial approach. Another problem for Palin is that Romney stands to consolidate movement conservative and moderate Republican support, as he will become the natural candidate for secular and non-evangelical voters, and she will be left fighting with Huckabee, Pawlenty and others over the voters who remain. A split field and winner-take-all system may work to Romney’s benefit just as they propelled McCain to the nomination last year. If she were to run, she would most likely become one of the also-ran, second-tier candidates.
Finally, losing VP candidates very rarely win the presidential nomination later on, and only once before has a losing VP candidate made it to the White House, so there is no reason why anyone would want to rally behind the losing VP candidate from a previous cycle. Even if Obama ends up having a lousy first term and has poor approval ratings, ousting an incumbent President is very difficult. When it is finally faced with the choice, the GOP is not going to make Palin its standard-bearer in the campaign to defeat Obama’s re-election bid.
Filed under: politics
14 Responses to “Palin’s Extremely Long Shot At The Nomination”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Finally, losing VP candidates who were not already Vice President never win the presidential nomination later on, so there is no reason why anyone would want to rally behind the losing VP candidate from a previous cycle.”
So Bob Dole and FDR never won the presidential nomination?
Palin certainly won’t be able to raise much establishment money compared to Romney… but what about small donors? Palin remains popular with the rump GOP base.
I don’t think she’ll run, though, because I don’t think she wants to risk coming near a position of responsibility. She’ll do a Gingrich-esque flirtation.
Sorry. Dole is easy to forget. I always overgeneralize when I make this point, and someone always reminds me of those two.
The counterargument is that she has access to the underground, so to speak, Christian media. That was what helped propel Huckabee in Iowa. Huckabee’s general media strategy can be repeated by almost any candidate: show up when called. It isn’t that complex. It is just a pain in the butt, because a lot of media opportunities are last minute to last hour affairs. Media are a lot more favorable to you when you show up.
Palin’s biggest problem, which you allude to, is that people that might be disposed to like her believe she is an idiot. She isn’t fast enough off the cuff to do 10,000-listener radio interviews, particularly now when her interviewer knows that he has a chance to make a name for himself if he makes her look dumb.
2012 speculation (not the Mayan calendar kind) is fun, but keep the block of salt handy. At this point, Petraeus is more likely than Palin.
In Dole’s case, it was 20 years, a couple of failed Presidential runs, and a decade as the ranking Republican in the Senate between his VP-run and his Presidential nomination. In a way, he’s the exception that proves the rule, because after he lost, he went to the back of the line and just happened to stay around long enough before his number came up again.
Palin, on the other hand, basically got out of line and is trying to force her way back to the front. It may or may not work, because the Republicans are in the unusual position of not having a clear “establishment” candidate the next time around. Though I’m doubtful, for the reasons that are outlined above.
I hope the GOP goes for Daniels, Pawlenty or some such. I expect the GOP brand to be much strong relative to the Dems by then that we shouldn’t be picking from the fringes of it.
Of the bunch, I dislike Pawlenty the least, but I wouldn’t discount Palin. She can raise money on line, she’ll have plenty of foot soldiers, and she’s not boring. If we have a quadrennium to inspire the pitchfork-wielders, I wouldn’t count her out completely.
You’re probably right about her chances, but I’m not sure that she’s going to have trouble raising money if she takes a shot at it, what with her truly fanatical fan base, and the fact that 58% of republicans in a recent poll identify with her.
The best comparison I think one can make to previous GOP candidates is George Bush himself, in that both were unqualified, incurious rubes who played upon a populist persona without actually being populists. There’s a strong sentiment in the GOP to go for candidates like this. If you think Romney can’t be beat by Palin, I’d suggest examining the 2000 campaign between Bush and McCain. Okay, maybe Palin’s handlers aren’t as slick as Bush’s, and she’s a much more difficult candidate to handle, but within the GOP at this point, that may be a plus. There’s plenty of Republicans who would rather lose with Palin than come closer but still lose with Romney.
The fact is, the rest of the GOP candidates are incredibly boring, dull, and useless. Palin is at least exciting and can move crowds. It can’t be overemphasized enough that many in the GOP strongly identify with her, and will view her as a protest vehicle. Sure, she’d be killed in a general election, but these people would celebrate like McGovernites at the 1972 convention if she got the nomination, and then suffer the humiliation of a complete landslide loss in the fall. But they would be happy to suffer that loss, because it fits their mindset. They would feel that they at least owned the party for one last time, which wasn’t the case in 2008 with McCain as the nominee. Romney simply can’t give anyone but Mormons and claymation producers that feeling.
That said, the only groups that will truly be pulling for Palin in 2012 are the vocal base of the GOP and Democrats. These opposites can come together at least on this one issue.
So true. The Dems know that can pit nearly anyone against Palin and they’ll come out on top. You can see it in blog comments on other websites.
Romney fared poorly enough in 2008. Now that the healthcare issue & the govt’s idiotic (if not insane) handling of the economy have come to the fore, Massachusetts-care and TARP support are going to hurt him even more than being a walking symbol of corporate America & the WallStreet-banking world. He’s also about as charismatic as McCain. Small wonder that many in the GOP leadership are already looking to Pawlenty and elsewhere.
Palin’s chances for winning the GOP nomination (if she wants it) are excellent. In our current age of internet-fueled partisanship, politics isn’t about competing sets of ideas. It’s about cheering on your champions while booing enemies. Ask which candidate would make the best cheerleader and Palin wins hands down.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Palin could win the nomination. There’s no one stronger than her in the GOP at this point in time. She has the organization and she’s making noise.
However, translating that into winning The White House is another story. A number of problems face her:
-History. Losing VPs in the previous election rarely win The White House.
-Some Americans still believe that the President should be a man. These are not liberal voters. These tend to be more conservative voters.
-She hasn’t separated herself from McCain who many conservatives detest.
-Some feel she’s “a cheeleader”, a lightweight but not a leader. If anything stood out last year, it was the fact that the GOP had no “leader”.
-People will still remember her horrible interview with Gibson.
-While she may be strongly pro-gun and pro-life, she’s also pro-Amnesty even if it’s “partial Amnesty” which she never explained. The illegal immigration issue makes her a RINO in the eyes of law and order conservatives.
-Her pentacostal video may haunt her, particularly with Bible Belters.
-Her family problems
-Her TARP support
Romney has more serious problems than Palin:
-He showed last year that he cannot win the South, his biggest problem.
-His support of TARP.
-There is strong animosity felt by conservatives towards
a. His position on Amnesty and illegal immigration. Don’t forget–he was a big supporter of Mike Pence’s “touchback” scheme. Mansiongate killed his chances for conservative support.
b. His faith. While he has a gorgeous family, Mormonism is not considered a true Christian religion by some Christian conservatives.
c. CFR membership.
d. He’s one of the big outsourcers of U.S. jobs and a strong proponent of offshoring businesses.
Huckabee has one thing going for him if he runs–he can win the South. However, that’s all he’d win.
Huckabee has these things facing him if he decides to run again:
-There are still serious doubts about his having “a rebirth” on illegal immigration/Amnesty.
-He’s a jokester. Some people find him less than funny.
There are two “unknowns” in 2012: 1) a darkhorse GOP conservative, someone other than the above or Pawlenty. I mean a real conservative, not a faux conservative.
and
2) And then there is the Dobbs factor. Lou is making noise about a possible run for the Senate or The White House. If he runs for President, it will be as an Independent and that will peel away important law and order conservative votes that the GOP nominee will need. Since Dobbs wouldn’t be running as a Republican, the primaries wouldn’t matter to him–he would be unopposed, allowing him to save money and raise money for November 2012. This could make him even stronger than Perot was in 1992. Few believe Dobbs can win given the power of the two-party system but he’s a very popular figure with voters. And right now, anger towards the Democrats as well as the RINOs in the GOP (Graham, Snowe, Collins et al) is very strong. A Dobbs candidacy changes the dynamic in the race. Dobbs is also a rich man which certainly can’t hurt him.