2012 Republican Nomination

[MarkG]

Palin

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Swissy
Wallace supporters despised Humphrey as he was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 passed.

They were also die hard Democrats. It was probably more likely they would have stayed home. Regardless of the Civil Rights Act, at that time, they wouldn't have voted for a Republican. 4 years later, OTOH, it was ok... then again Nixon was running against McGovern.

[Ben Kenobi]

Santorum lost because he was an ******* politician and he was going up against a scion of an historic Pennsylvania political family, IIRC.

Santorum did fine with Catholics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously Catholics alone aren't enough to win PA.

[GePap]

I don't get why people think Palin would be a viable candidate in 2012 - if McCain loses, a fair number of Republicans will put his picking of Palin as one reason (and a darned good one). Maybe in four years she will be less completely unqualified than she currently is, but her support from the far right now is based on the fact she is the only one of "them" running (cause McCain sure isn't). If placed in competition against other conservative christians, I can't see her winning such a contest.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Why? Riley has prayed during press conferences and has assisted in building infrastructure and job creation.

Mississippi is still a horrible state you wish you could just drive straight through but instead are forced to decided to get gas either there or Louisiana.

SC sucks too.

While what you say about SC and MS are true, keep in mind that you're comparing the state to AL. On a good day, you might be able to say that the state is less ****ed than Darfur...

As I was saying, there's a reasonable chance that Riley'll be defeated in two years. The Dem benches in MS and (particularly) SC are far weaker than in AL.

Barbour has the record of Katrina and Sanford has the SC Primary. I don't see what Riley brings to the table. And a generic conservative deep Southerner would be absolutely slaughtered by Obama.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't get why people think Palin would be a viable candidate in 2012 - if McCain loses, a fair number of Republicans will put his picking of Palin as one reason (and a darned good one). Maybe in four years she will be less completely unqualified than she currently is, but her support from the far right now is based on the fact she is the only one of "them" running (cause McCain sure isn't). If placed in competition against other conservative christians, I can't see her winning such a contest.

A lot of the fundies have really latched onto her. I think you're underestimating the degree to which this is the case. I don't know if that's enough to get her through the primaries, but it gives her a sizeable base.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously Catholics alone aren't enough to win PA.

Remember, Santorum's opponent was catholic too.

Pennsylvania has unique politics. Trying to extrapolate from Pennsylvania to the US at large is a ridiculous exercise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
A lot of the fundies have really latched onto her. I think you're underestimating the degree to which this is the case. I don't know if that's enough to get her through the primaries, but it gives her a sizeable base.

She has a very nice built in fundy base. But it won't get her through the primaries... it will make her a player if she decides to run.

And a generic conservative deep Southerner would be absolutely slaughtered by Obama.

Depends on what happens in the next 4 years.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
....

And a generic conservative deep Southerner would be absolutely slaughtered by Obama.

Depends on what happens in the next 4 years.

Most economist are predicting a recession of from 1 to four years. As long as Obama doesn't totally screw things up, he'll be able to run for re-election by claiming credit for bringing us out of these awful economic times.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't get why people think Palin would be a viable candidate in 2012 - if McCain loses, a fair number of Republicans will put his picking of Palin as one reason (and a darned good one). Maybe in four years she will be less completely unqualified than she currently is, but her support from the far right now is based on the fact she is the only one of "them" running (cause McCain sure isn't). If placed in competition against other conservative christians, I can't see her winning such a contest.

Yep. Every prominent Republican-but-for-Obama piece I've read -- from Andrew Sullivan to Kathleen Parker to Christopher Buckley to the endorsements from the Chicago Tribune and the Houston Chronicle, every one has said something like this (this is the Chronicle):

Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle's choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.

If McCain goes down, Palin's taking the fall. We're not goint to hear from her again until she leaves office and becomes a FOX News commentator.

[Zkribbler]

I don't think you'll be able to blame Palin for McCain's loss. Rather, it's McCain's embracing Hoover's theory of Trickle-Down Economics.

Hopefully, we won't see it again for a long time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can I have some of what you are smoking Zkribbler?

The concern with McCain is that he's been all over the map.

I can use some of the good stuff.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't think you'll be able to blame Palin for McCain's loss. Rather, it's McCain's embracing Hoover's theory of Trickle-Down Economics.

Hopefully, we won't see it again for a long time.

If McCain loses, the reasons why will be interesting and complicated.

But the GOP won't want interesting and complicated reasons, especially if those reasons implicate their ideology or their stewardship. They'll want simple reasons that allow them to say, "well, we're just fine; we could have won this thing if it just hadn't had been for X." Palin is tailor-made to be "X"; she can be sent packing to the furthest reaches on America, and the GOP can get back to being in denial. Mark my words, that's how it will unfold.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Can I have some of what you are smoking Zkribbler?

The concern with McCain is that he's been all over the map.

I can use some of the good stuff.

All over the map, sure, but the Polairs star to which his compass always is to tax cuts for the most wealthy (the underlying assumption is that they will take their tax cuts and create jobs for the rest of us). So, the one constant is his kleidescope of positions is a economic theory that constantly fails to produce positive results for the vast majority of Americans.