She’s got too many negatives, not for me, but for too many people. So I think she’s better off on the outside looking in.”This seems to be a common thread among the people that they spoke to. I don't think that anyone that pays attention to politics doubt the fact that Palin could win the republican nomination next summer, the question really is can she win over the independents in order to win a general election? While her Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC broke viewing records for the network, the number who watched was about 5 million. Not a number that gives one pause to think that many people in the middle were watching.
The reality remains that the independents hold all the cards in elections. You can get the base behind a candidate for each party, but unless that candidate is bringing in the middle a general election is out of reach. One of the more recent polls is showing her negatives above 50% going as far back as July. The number is actually increasing not decreasing.
We have all seen the videos that show Obama voters from 2 years ago believing that Palin said things that were actually part of Tina Fey's SNL skits. Many of those misconceptions still have not been cleared up. There are also some other realities that must be taken into consideration. Pro life women are much more villified than pro life men. Of course this isn't fair, but it is a political reality. Abortion is used as a wedge issue, especially in national elections.
Gov. Palin's resignation is also another issue that she will have to overcome. While it cannot be denied that the ethics issues lawsuits were a strain on both the State of Alaska and Gov. Palin personally. There are people who will continue to look at that decision from another point of view; quitter.
Another issue that Palin is going to have to deal with is her endorsement choices; John McCain is understandable due to a sense of loyalty. I personally question that loyalty since the McCain family has not exactly been very loyal to her. It seems to me that the Senator used her when he was facing a tough primary bid, and now has gone back to his usual "Oh, I don't know" answers when he is asked if he would support her presidental run. Answering that question this far out shouldn't be as hard for him as it seems to be. She also did another pick that made conservatives question her; Carly Fiorina over the much more conservative Chuck Devore. Palin was absolutely correct that Devore had no chance at winning a statewide election in California, but the image was planted in the minds of some. Her choice of Governor in Iowa is another:
In Carley’s case, though she said she “respects and admires” Palin, she said she was “disappointed” by one of Palin’s few conventional political moves: her endorsement of Iowa’s governor-elect, Jim Branstad, a Republican who is considered insufficiently conservative by many in the grassroots.As it stands at the moment Palin would not win the Iowa Caucuses, she would come in second by Huckabee. Now, we have no idea if either are actually running at this point, but she has been damaged in Iowa, the first caucus state which helps build momentum for candidates moving forward.
“I really respected her until she endorsed Terry Branstad,” Carley said. “I think she was positioning herself politically.”
Jim Carley, her husband, chimed in: “A lot of Iowans feel that way. She took a big nosedive.”
Palin “is a fantastic organizer for the conservative movement — she is pitch perfect on the stump.”
“I would hope she keeps doing that through the 2012 cycle. There are other, better positioned, more qualified candidates the Republican Party could nominate,”
It seems that Tea Party members are keeping their eye on the prize; getting Obama out of office. A candidate that will have a difficult time winning that election is not option.
Posts
5 comments:
I am a independent formally of the GOP. I would NEVER vote or Sarah Palin based on his decisions and endorsements in the mid-term elections. She did NOT endorse the conservative in CA, Chuck Devore. You either walk the talk or your don't. She doesn't. I don't trust his decision making ability. She showed me she has become an establishment D.C.er. She's not for me.
Well for some reason my "her" comes out "his" lets see if this takes correctly.
Well, no one interviewed me. I absolutely understand that we conservatives have a few things we mostly agree on, and after that, we are as diverse as the country as a whole. Which is fine, it's a good thing. My point is that despite the interviews that The Daily Caller has been doing, I don't agree that we can conclude that "the Tea Party...[they] don't see her as presidential material."
I do. Granted, she would be one of the most different candidates the country has seen, but she is smart, has common sense, has a moral core and doesn't apologize for that, doesn't try to present a "perfect" picture, doesn't try to parse her words to disguise what she thinks. I accept that many good conservative people do not see her the same way I do, but I am certainly not alone in my thinking either.
I find the observation about pro-life women interesting, and curious. Are you intimating that the GOP is consigned to forever running men candidates, since pro-life women are 'more vilified' that pro-life men?
Her endorsement choices didn't bother me; they were a clear and unquestionable example of her pragmatism and practicality, and, I think, of her clear understanding of how serious the current threat is to this country. She endorsed some candidates who were less conservative than some would have liked, but she endorsed the ones who, like she stated, were the most conservative and able to win. Let's not forget that she endorsed Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, both of whom were Tea Party favs, but were certainly not the establishment choices.
Sorry for the long comment, but I can't let statements like 'the Tea Party doesn't see her as presidential material,' stand without weighing in. While I'm sure that many in the Tea Party movement don't see her that way, a whole lot of us do.
Pup:
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter so much what the active members of the Tea Party think. It will be the people that in the middle that don't go to tea party rallies that will ultimately make the decision on who wins the general election. The nomination yes, the general no. And I am not saying that these people don't agree with some or all of the tea party stands, just that they don't show up at rallies.
No, I don't think that republicans can't run pro life women on a national ticket, what I mean by that it is yet one more polarizing aspect of her candidacy. I personally don't really vote on the more social issues, so it makes no difference to me if someone is pro life or not for the most part. I also think that social issues need to be put on the backburner for the moment while we deal with the much bigger fiscal issues. But, for some, social issues are very high on the list when choosing a candidate. That is true for both sides of the abortion issue. I have friends who would never vote for a pro life candidate. Crazy, I know, but that one issue is a non starter for them. Then there are many that while it may be important, they will bend on it if the candidate has many other attributes that are good ones.
Also, you said that she backed the most conservative candidate who could win; if that were true she wouldn't have backed O'Donnell over Castle. Castle was certainly more conservative than Coons. Someone with O'Donnell's strong views on social issues makes winning in a state like Delaware very difficult. That is one of the things that I am talking about there was no real rhyme or reason with her picks. They were inconsistent. Someone that I met at the Beck rally was from Nevada and they didn't like Angle (whack job was the phrase they used), and said that they blamed Palin for the choice. They told me that it almost guarranteed a Reid re-election. Turns out they were right. Those type of things stay with people.
Two years is a long way off, and I think the point of the story was not that the Tea Party people that they spoke to didn't think that Palin was qualified, what they are questioning is can she get over the large hurdle of the high negatives she has with the independents? I personally wouldn't be surprised to find that this split was about even. But there is no real way to poll them accurately.
Mark Levin thought Castle was just as bad as Coons. Looking at Castle's voting record, I was inclined to agree.
I don't usually get into discussions about Palin; most of us who are staunch conservatives and are more aware of what's going on have made up our minds about her. You're right that in the general, it will be the middle that makes the critical difference.
My hope and prayer is that whomever ends up being the GOP nominee will present a stark difference to Obama, and all past candidates. I'm tired of and have no more patience with Dem-lite candidates, or candidates that are conservative but do not speak out boldly and often against the path this administration is taking us down. I don't want a conservative candidate who will try to sound moderate to get votes. I'm just done with that. I say, give the country a crystal clear choice between Obama and a patriotic, sensible, economically-wise clear-cut conservative, and I believe the bold conservative will win. That may or may not be Palin, but please, no more Romneys, or McCains.
Post a Comment