If Palin wants it, and she does, who could stop her from the Iowa Caucus in '12?

[AltWorlder]

Jindal in 2012 would have more experience than Palin had this year- surely that at least qualifies him to be a veep candidate in the eyes of the Republicans (especially if they get desperate).  As far as a presidential candidate, well- look at Obama!

I think if anything 2008 taught us it's that image beats experience in terms of party selection any day.  Of course, if Obama's presidency turns out to be bad, then maybe we'll all be wiser in four years.

[Lunar]

Jindal in 2012 would have more experience than Palin had this year- surely that at least qualifies him to be a veep candidate in the eyes of the Republicans (especially if they get desperate).  As far as a presidential candidate, well- look at Obama!

I think if anything 2008 taught us it's that image beats experience in terms of party selection any day.  Of course, if Obama's presidency turns out to be bad, then maybe we'll all be wiser in four years.

It's a question about Iowa.  Clearly Huck didn't have game-clenching credentials but he still won the Iowa caucus.

[BlueSwan]

I would like to think that Palin has been so tainted by this race, that she'll never get within the GOP nomination.

I'm not sure Romney has got what it takes.

Huckabee, maybe.

But really, what the GOP wants against Obama in 2012, is someone fresh.

[Workers' Friend]

We'll see what happens in two weeks. I still think Huckabee is going to be in a stronger position. He'll be in the public spotlight for the next couple of years through his new Fox News TV show, he has a large PAC, he has a big evangelical and populist following (which has rapidly become the GOP base). Moreover, I think if the alternative is Palin, even the establishment may decide to back Huckabee (keeping with their pattern of supporting the runner-up from the last cycle, even one they previously hated).

Neat observation....but wasn't Romney the "Runner Up" in this election? Or was it really the Huckster?

     How many runner-ups actually get the nod next time without being put on the ticket the first time? There's McCain, but his nomination in 2008 was far from a fait accompli.

Reagan and Dole (Dole's case is complicated, because he was put on the ticket in '76, but didn't get the nomination until 1996, following his being the runner up in '88)......4 of the last 5 GOP nominees (Reagan, GHW Bush, Dole, and McCain) got the GOP nomination after having been the runner up in the previous competitive GOP nomination cycle, regardless of whether they were on the ticket before.  Yeah, it wasn't really a fait accompli in each of those cases that each of those guys would win, but that's a heck of a trend.

     As I recall Rockefeller did not run in 1980 & Quayle did not run in 1996. Fact is, being the runner-up last time probably does not give odds as good as being the running mate/VP does (though it is a definite boon).

Rockefeller couldn't run in 1980 anyway, he died in 1979.

[paul718]

I don't think winning Iowa holds as much weight as it once did.  Look at Huckabee. 

With all the information available nowadays (wikipedia, blogs, PAC websites, drudge, 24/7 news networks, etc.) people have a better understanding of who the candidates are and what they're about regardless of who gets the first headline to kickoff the primary season.  And rightfully so.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think winning Iowa holds as much weight as it once did.  Look at Huckabee. 

With all the information available nowadays (wikipedia, blogs, PAC websites, drudge, 24/7 news networks, etc.) people have a better understanding of who the candidates are and what they're about regardless of who gets the first headline to kickoff the primary season.  And rightfully so.

Iowa by itself has never been everything (look at the GOP contests in 1980 and 1988 for example), but the early primaries collectively are still plenty important.  Do you really think McCain would have won the GOP nomination if he'd lost New Hampshire and South Carolina?  Since the modern primary system started, no GOP candidate has ever won the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire.

[Bob Dole '96]

one thing to keep in mind about Palin is that her main attribute - perceived physical attractiveness - is likely to take a sharp downtown over the next handful of years.  she's 44 right now, iirc, which is near the age-cap for being a MILF.  could she retain MILF status at age 47-48?  conceivably, but it is hardly a given.

I don't see her being able to run any sort of national campaign.  she's shown nothing over the past few months to suggest that she has the neurological wherewithal to do so, and she may well understand her own limitations.

she could retain popularity with the "base," but I don't think she can get anywhere near 270 barring Obama facilitating the absolute destruction of the Western world.  but I suppose that's not what this thread is about...

Jindal is smarter and would be able to out-youth her (he'll only be ~40 at the time of Iowa) and will appeal better to the base. 



or something.

If you think that's her main attribute in the eyes of those who supporter her, you are clearly clueless when it comes to conservatives.  While her beauty is to be appreciated, it is probably 5th or 6th on the list.  Granted, if she was not attractive it may hurt her, but it's her conservatism, warmth, and non-comformity to the beltway crap that we love.  Palin 2012 here we come.

And if McCain wins, I think he does one term anyway so she'll be the nominee.

[HardRCafé]

Palin's main attribute and the reason she was chosen is taking on the Frank Murkowski and Don Young good old boys network in Alaska and actually capturing the governorship.  Fake reform is a dime a dozen.  Real reform earns you enemies, as the absurdity of "Troopergate" so well illustrated.

[12th Doctor]

How about a quiz?  50 questions, easy, general knowledge.  I think that could beat her.

[lolitsadam]

Lord, please let her win.  Obama would have an LBJ-esque landslide in '12 if she ends up being the GOP nominee.

I don't see Jindal winning a GOP primary, however.  If Romney were to run again, he could maybe put up a fight.

[Sensei]

one thing to keep in mind about Palin is that her main attribute - perceived physical attractiveness - is likely to take a sharp downtown over the next handful of years.  she's 44 right now, iirc, which is near the age-cap for being a MILF.  could she retain MILF status at age 47-48?  conceivably, but it is hardly a given.

I don't see her being able to run any sort of national campaign.  she's shown nothing over the past few months to suggest that she has the neurological wherewithal to do so, and she may well understand her own limitations.

she could retain popularity with the "base," but I don't think she can get anywhere near 270 barring Obama facilitating the absolute destruction of the Western world.  but I suppose that's not what this thread is about...

Jindal is smarter and would be able to out-youth her (he'll only be ~40 at the time of Iowa) and will appeal better to the base. 



or something.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

Won't be an issue for her. She'll just get plastic surgery if necessary.

if she looks exactly the same in 10-15 years as she does now that would just be weird, not hot.

Not to mention that she's a GMILF in a matter of weeks.

[Lunar]

I don't think winning Iowa holds as much weight as it once did.  Look at Huckabee. 

That's kinda the point of the thread.  But not the inherent question.

How could Palin be worse positioned than Huckabee?  She's come out as pro-Ethanol, has mad connections, and has even more base appeal.

[Daniel Z]

I think how bad McCain loses today if he indeed loses will play a huge factor in Palin's future viability. If Obama wins in a blow out I think we will see a lot of Monday morning Quarterbacking on the Palin pick. Three years of Palin blasting by segments of the Republican party will go a long way in dimming the enthusiasm for Palin, in circles outside of the Religious Right.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think Romney will definately be running in 2012. He has done for more money raising and campaigning for GOP Candidates then Huck and Sarah combined. If Romney runs I think Huck does to. Both Huck and Sarah running would give Romney a chance in Iowa. He would not be totally reliant on Iowa though instead focusing more on New Hampshire. Romney can do more for GOP unity then Huck could  as Romney could hold the fiscal conservatives that Huck woyuld lose and the National security Cosnervatives Palinb would lose.

[paul718]

I don't think winning Iowa holds as much weight as it once did.  Look at Huckabee. 

That's kinda the point of the thread.  But not the inherent question.

How could Palin be worse positioned than Huckabee?  She's come out as pro-Ethanol, has mad connections, and has even more base appeal.

Thune, I guess, unless he's a deregulator.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think winning Iowa holds as much weight as it once did.  Look at Huckabee. 

That's kinda the point of the thread.  But not the inherent question.

How could Palin be worse positioned than Huckabee?  She's come out as pro-Ethanol, has mad connections, and has even more base appeal.

Thune, I guess, unless he's a deregulator.

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

[paul718]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

[Workers' Friend]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

[Workers' Friend]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

That'd be nice, but sadly unachievable. War is a evil that will sadly stay around, but that is why we have to stay defensive, helpful, and alert.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

That'd be nice, but sadly unachievable. War is a evil that will sadly stay around, but that is why we have to stay defensive, helpful, and alert.

I just figured I'd ask since we were talking about the unlikely.

[Workers' Friend]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

That'd be nice, but sadly unachievable. War is a evil that will sadly stay around, but that is why we have to stay defensive, helpful, and alert.

I just figured I'd ask since we were talking about the unlikely.

I think that Fiscal Conservatism is likely to leave the GOP, after this year. The Social and Fiscal Conservatives are in a duke out, and I guarantee the small government people that have corrupted this nation for so long will finally leave the GOP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

That'd be nice, but sadly unachievable. War is a evil that will sadly stay around, but that is why we have to stay defensive, helpful, and alert.

I just figured I'd ask since we were talking about the unlikely.

I think that Fiscal Conservatism is likely to leave the GOP, after this year. The Social and Fiscal Conservatives are in a duke out, and I guarantee the small government people that have corrupted this nation for so long will finally leave the GOP.

The fiscal conservatives left long ago. But I assume you mean economically right-wing. Anyways, even Republicans whom are supposed to be non economically right-wing, like Huckabee, support crazy economic policies like a national sales tax.

[Workers' Friend]

Republicans tend to be deregulators.

I know.

Hopefully, the party can eject them out and stick to the populists that will likely be the base.

While we're at it, can we have Peace on Earth, too?

That'd be nice, but sadly unachievable. War is a evil that will sadly stay around, but that is why we have to stay defensive, helpful, and alert.

I just figured I'd ask since we were talking about the unlikely.

I think that Fiscal Conservatism is likely to leave the GOP, after this year. The Social and Fiscal Conservatives are in a duke out, and I guarantee the small government people that have corrupted this nation for so long will finally leave the GOP.

The fiscal conservatives left long ago. But I assume you mean economically right-wing. Anyways, even Republicans whom are supposed to be non economically right-wing, like Huckabee, support crazy economic policies like a national sales tax.

Well, Huckabee would be our safest bet. I wish a candidate that was Socially Right and Economically Left would win.

[phk]

As much as I'd like to see the prospect of a South Asian as the president of the USA. Jindal should wait till 2016 (when he's 45 years old). Theres no need to break age records with him. It would be amazing to see him gain some style coupled with his work experience.

If the country is in a pro-GOP mood and Obama is in shambles than let Jindal run, if not than use Palin as a sacrificial lamb.