Bad News for Palin
Matthew Continetti ·
Feb 8, 2011 at 7:59am
A new CNN poll suggests that Republicans are more interested in nominating a candidate who has a chance against Obama than one who agrees with them on every issue. It's another sign that Sarah Palin would be better served—and would become more influential—if she decides against a presidential campaign.
Another interesting finding in the poll is that Mike Huckabee continues to lead the pack, both in terms of the horserace and in overall favorability. I continue to believe that the most important x-factor in the 2012 contest is whether or not Huckabee decides to run.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
David Jones: Tell you this: if Huckabee is the nominee, then I'm staying home
I'm with you there, sir!!
Besides, he looks like a dork when he sits in a chair with his ankles crossed.
Dec '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
"I continue to believe that the most important x-factor in the 2012 contest is whether or not Huckabee decides to run."
Believe away. I've seen me some Huck, up close and personal, during the 2008 race. If it came to it, I would have a hard time deciding upon whether to vote for Obama or just leave the top of the ticket blank, were Huckabee the only alternative.
Why is it that no-show State Senator Obama, then 1/3 term U.S. Senator Obama isn't a quitter? Did Obama ever actually convene a single hearing of the only committee he headed up, the one overseeing Afghanistan? Why is Hillary Clinton not a quitter? Didn't she promise the voters in NY State she would not do so? This isn't a Palin comment, so much as it is a comparison. Which one, Clinton, or Obama, was defending themselves on the state nickel, at every quarter?
Huckabee? CNN would love for us to be defending Huckabee. I won't do it. If you haven't seen him, personally, then you don't understand what a straw man CNN is trying to promote.
May '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Stuart Creque
Duane Oyen
The problem with this interpretation is that this was the second "early quit" in a row for Palin. I understand her rationale, given the ugly Alaska conflict law, but she also jumped ship as oil & gas commissioner. This starts to look like a habit- when things get tough, jump out for a more congenial position. · Feb 8 at 2:24pm
Seriously? Quitting as oil and gas commissioner helped out the suspect practices of a fellow commissioner (of her own party!). She walked away from a six-figure salary to get out from under the Alaskan law that required her to stay silent, and then went public with what she knew about the other commissioner's ethics violations. There was no other "more congenial position" awaiting her.
Apparently the non-quitter's standard is to reach accommodation with corruption rather than leave office and take one's fight against corruption public. ·
You seriously believe there was no other way to handle the crooked party chair in the make-work job? I guarantee that any one of at least 4 other possible 2012 candidates would have had no trouble finding a way to get rid of him.
May '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Stuart Creque
That would be one tough choice: Obama vs. Huckabee. I tend to agree with you, David, except that I probably would feel compelled to vote in order to prevent a second Obama term. · Feb 8 at 12:07pm
I'm almost there with you. Almost. I've voted GOP even when I can't get excited about the candidate and very rarely strayed except to vote for local libertarians on occasion. Huck, though, is just a little too far for me.
The reason I would be willing to walk away from this, though, probably revolves around some (possibly misplaced) faith that the GOP will make more gains in House and Senate in the next election. If I can't have the government that I want, then at least a divided government makes the worst of the damage less likely (ObamaCare wouldn't have passed, for instance).
Dec '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
This poll is meaningless, especially, but not just because it is CNN. All polls at this time are silly.
If Sarah Palin were such a miserable flunky of a person and a candidate, people would ignore her. But she isn't, and that's the real point. If she runs, she will do better than any of her detractors will ever admit. Would she win? Maybe not, BUT she would make everyone else in the race have to work for his vote, and I'm all for that.
Anyone who would stay home because his or her candidate didn't make the cut, and would just assume allow Obama to stroll into another term, simply is not paying attention.
I find that the more Palin is attacked by the Left and the Right, the more I like her. She's not my #1 choice, but I admire her guts and would be fine with her as my President.
Finally, we know more about who she is and where she stands on the largest number of issues than any other candidate. I'm still waiting for all these others to make their case.
Nov '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Here here. I'm not pro-Palin (Christie/Ryan '12!) but I am becoming increasingly anti-anti-Palin. The sheer amount of unhinged vitriol directed at her is approaching "Call Krauthammer" levels.
Aug '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Vuvuzela:
Finally, we know more about who she is and where she stands on the largest number of issues than any other candidate. I'm still waiting for all these others to make their case. · Feb 8 at 11:04pm
This was my point earlier. "Pres. Reagan was about letting principles drive action. The unspoken quest for the Republican Party in recent memory has been to discover the next Reagan."
There isn't a 'likely candidate' currently in the mix who fits this quest. (Because Palin hasn't declared, I don't include her in the set of 'likely candidates', I also don't consider Christie in the set of 'likely candidates.') For the purposes of discussion, I consider 'likely candidates' to be Huckabee, Romney, Newt, and (given his resignation) Huntsman. Are there others who ought to be in the set?
Additionally, there has been another set spoken of here, which is the wish list. Palin, and Christie are both on my wish list. Each of them I think meets the goal of the quest.
May '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Instugator
Vuvuzela:
Finally, we know more about who she is and where she stands on the largest number of issues than any other candidate. I'm still waiting for all these others to make their case. · Feb 8 at 11:04pm
This was my point earlier. "Pres. Reagan was about letting principles drive action. The unspoken quest for the Republican Party in recent memory has been to discover the next Reagan."
There isn't a 'likely candidate' currently in the mix who fits this quest. (Because Palin hasn't declared, I don't include her in the set of 'likely candidates', I also don't consider Christie in the set of 'likely candidates.') For the purposes of discussion, I consider 'likely candidates' to be Huckabee, Romney, Newt, and (given his resignation) Huntsman. Are there others who ought to be in the set?
...................... the wish list. Palin, and Christie are both on my wish list. Each of them I think meets the goal of the quest. · Feb 9 at 8:26am
Newt is the only conservative on the "likely" list, and he is unelectable. Instugator, not one candidate you have there on either list could win.
Aug '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
Duane Oyen
Newt is the only conservative on the "likely" list, and he is unelectable. Instugator, not one candidate you have there on either list could win. · Feb 9 at 11:56am
I don't think Newt is conservative. Newt's positions on Cap and trade, Ethanol, Anthropogenic Global warming make him a non-conservative. I especially take issue to his claim to an 'all of the above' energy policy. Work I did recently on looking at Ethanol, plus the apparent failure of the Picken's plan show that one who is embracing 'All of the Above' is doing more pandering than not. Newt is absolutely not for me.
Oct '10
Re: Bad News for Palin
" I consider 'likely candidates' to be Huckabee, Romney, Newt, and (given his resignation) Huntsman."
How much better i would feel if these were the Democrat candidates for President.