A couple comments on their list:
1. will Mitt Romney fans push the "Palin and Huckabee are too far right" line? in 2008, Romney was vying for the conservative activist vote, because his biggest threats -- rudy and mccain -- were moderates.
but now Romney's biggest threats appear to farther right than mitt. how's he going to position himself this time? from recent interviews, he seems to be taking the economic conservative banner and paying less attention to cultural issues. that's probably smart, since it neutralizes his religion as an issue. a mormon on cultural issues is "scarier" than a mormon on the economy, the CW would probably say, since there's more overlap on the former than the latter.
2. their sanford analysis is suspect. mark sanford, "compromise candidate"? mark sanford, "play it safe" choice? this isn't the mark sanford we've been following.
3. they end their discussion of the top 5 with:
"I’ve decided I’m going to stop at #5, since its highly unlikely that anyone below that level will become the nominee."
there's a herpes-outbreak level of candidates beyond the five they mentioned, many of whom are viable. let's see some power rankings on them, guys!
2 comments:
Not a good idea for romney supporters to be attacking palin, if that's what they are doing.
I've never actually heard Palin ever once attack another Republican national politician. She has never attacked anyone's religion. Huckabee is another story, him and Romney have a blood feud. It's a smart move to try and paint her as a social conservative, though that's not her reputation at all in Alaska.
I don't think Palin supporters attack anyone but moderates like McCain, Graham, and media folks like Brooks, Noonan. They all seem to like Romney, because the guy is a conservative. I expect a Palin-Romney to be pretty civil but Mitt would have an uphill climb in Iowa.
Nevada would be an incredible matchup between Mitt and Sarah. The Mormon enthuisiasm would have to balance out Palin's rural enthuism. I wonder what are Palin's organizational skills in terms of campaigns. She needed to win two campaigns in Alaska, without the full-throated support of her party and much money, so I would imagine she's pretty good at firing up the grassroots which is all you need in caucus states (see Obama's presidential campaign against Hillary). It would be interesting to see if Palin could apply the lessons she learned in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign in the 2012 Iowa and nevada caucuses. She's the only one of all the candidates who has defeated an incumbent and former governor and been an underdog in the sense she had less money than her opponents and wasn't endorsed by her party wholeheartedly. That experience should help her compared to the others (I think Jindal had a financial advantage in the general, though I'm not sure).
Anonymous, your right. She has a terrific track record when you really look at what she's done. So if her record's a guide, she should be ready for Iowa. I might be wrong but I think the only election she's ever lost was while she was running against McCain.
She won't have that douche to keep her down in 2012. Also I know there are mormons in Nevada, but are there that many? I think palin was pretty popular when she campaigned there for McCain. It would be interesting to look at where McCain deployed her. That would give a great sign of her strength.
This site, ahem, that i'm writing this on doesn't seem to give Palin much of a chance. But EVERYONE has problems if you look hard enough. If Romney and Huckabee couldn't win in a wide open field in 2008, why would we expect them to do any better in 2012? And i'm not impressed with the crop of governors that everyone's raving so much about. Haley Freaking barbour?? I like Sanford but he doesn't have palin's star power.
GO PALIN 2012!!!!
Post a Comment