Will Sarah Palin be elected President of the US in 2012?

[Vuk]

Do you think she will run (or try to run) as a Republican? Through all the Primaries and Caucuses?

Or will she try to start a new Party? And who would she pick, you think, as her VP running mate (the person to replace her in case Ice has his way).

I don't know. I think that she would probably have a better chance as a Republican, but she is a much better judge of her political options than I am. If she started a new party based on the values she has espoused I would support it (EDIT: Probably...depending on who the repubs were running. While I think Palin is the best there is out there, if she did not stand a chance I would support the next best that did. I do though, think it very possible that she would have a chance. Only time will tell I guess). The Republican party has become completely useless in the last few decades, so real conservatives feel like they do not have a place to fit in (I for instance am not a republican, but am certainly a conservative).
As far as her running mate, I think that will speak volumes about her ability to lead and her intelligence. I at least judge candidates a lot on who they pick as their running mate. I have no idea who she will pick, and will not even attempt to guess. I think she is smart enough to make a really good choice, but time will tell.

[Watchman]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO. Dunno how well that relates to US voters, but it does tell something.

[Vuk]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO.

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.

[Captain Blackadder]

How so taking out Bushs presidency before he became President he had a much better CV then Palin lets compare

Education

Bush Harvard Business School earned an MBA (Only us President to do so)
Palin Universty of Idaho whilst it is a fine Universty not quite up to Havard Levels.

Pre Political Life
Bush Air National Guard, Ran small Oil Company and the Texas Rangers
Palin Beauty Queen Sportscaster in small time networks

First Political Job Attempts
Bush Narrow lose in 19th District Congress would have have 600,000 people he lost by 6% of the vote
Palin City Council of Wasilla one of the smallest towns in the United States she won with 552 votes

Second Political Job
Bush Governer of Texas one of the largest states in terms of size and population also one of the states with the most money
Palin Mayor of Wasilla.

Governerships
Bush is relectecd in 1998 with a record 69% of the vote
Palin becomes Governer of Alaska with 48% of the vote

Now as far as I can tell the comparison is favourable to bush.

Here is how Bush spoke before he was President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Now compare to Palin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAibiOJ5NE

Now looking at it the comparison is favourable to Bush.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO. Dunno how well that relates to US voters, but it does tell something.

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.

Whist this may have been true amongst the religious Right, it was not true with the majoriety of Americans. They were horrified by her in many cases, and even more so by her fans, and I use that phrase deliberately.

One quote that's stuck with me, from a middle aged father, "Woo! She's Hot".

[CountArach]

No. There is no way she could win back enough electoral votes. The oly advantage she would have would be in the south and given the surge in the black vote that is likely to re-occur in the 2012 election even this could be negligible.

I sure as heck hope/think so. That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!

Notice how conservatives didn't mention the glass ceiling until Sarah Palin was mentioned and suddenly she is the champion of feminism, and women were claimed for the right wing. Neither is true. But whatever, that is slightly off-topic.

Palin as already off to a great start clearing her name. Conservatives love her, I even know former Democrats who support her just because they hate the way the current regime is taking things. I would say that she has at least a 50/50 chance at winning.

You clearly are utterly incapable of reading and understanding polling data. She has a -6 net unfavourability rating and very few undecideds (And hence very little wiggle room). This is compared to -2 net for Romney and +5 net for Huckabee (+3 net for Obama). This means that, even if she somehow wins the party primary (I'm sceptical, though I think it is possible) she has to convince a public that already dislikes her and thinks she is unqualified (as data shows) that she is worth electing President.

Did you see how many people went to her book signings? I'd say she is pretty popular. :P

Yes, but not in the right circles. She has the votes of conservatives... but Independents still don't like her.

EDIT: Anyway, she has something that America really craves right now, common sense. She is a hardworking, real person who is very much in touch with the common man and woman. She is also highly intelligent and has smart, common sense sollutions. People are tired of the reckless and ridiculous policies that Obama's administration (and to an extent, Bush's) has been pushing. It is time for Change, and she is that Change.

I'm going to admit right out. These are the points at which I laughed... really hard.

EDIT 2: She also has an uncanny optimism that is very encouraging and appealing. I would not underestimate that.

And Obama doesn't? You seem to be assuming she isn't running against anyone.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, I actually do have an interest in her gender. I think that it is important that everyone, including women know that they are just as free as anyone else to participate in the political process, and are not looked down on because of their gender. I think that if the first ever female President of the United States was an idiot, corrupt, etc it would make people doubt the ability of women to handle such a position. I think that it is important that the first woman be as good as the best man (Reagan), and I think Palin fits that ticket. It does not and never would effect my decision to vote. I will always vote for who I think is most fit for the job, but that is an awesome added bonus that I think will be beneficial for all women in changing the way that they are perceived.

Weren't you one of the ones complaining about people voting for Obama whilst using his race as a justification because you just described why that would be fine. Also the highlighted bit shows why we need a female feminist to come to power somewhere. You seem to take it that the word "everyone" could be construed as "excluding women", and hence the need for a linguistic change is palpable. By a feminist coming to power this change will be accelerated as the discourse of gender power relations is inverted. A female who is not a feminist will not have this same ability as she will still frame discourse in masculinist terms.

I fear I may have wandered from the point again though.

And Obama? He's wrapping up two idiotic and failed wars started by Palin's ilk. Now which one would I prefer....hmmm.....

Actually he is still perpetuating one of them and has only finished-up Iraq.

Palin a moron? LOL, no offense, but she is probably a lot smarter than the both of us.

Speak for yourself.

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.

Palin was a joke from the outset. Also notice how her unfavourability rating has continued to rise after the election - that is without the influence of the McCain campaign.

I suggest you read this article which shows the reasons why Palin might win the Republican nomination, yet would struggle in a general election, which includes this bit that I didn't know:

Not surprisingly, Palin scores somewhere in between on favorable ratings and other summary measures. Most surveys find more Americans with an unfavorable impression of Palin than a favorable one, but the most important finding is one reported two weeks ago by the ABC News/Washington Post poll: A majority of Americans (53 percent) say they would "definitely not vote for her."

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR

The moment the economy crashed McCain lost the election, but I think that Palin did still play into it. Her unfavourability rating shot up remarkably quickly and McCain's numbers had started to plateau by that time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR

Ahahaha, that was some funny

[Reverend Joe]

I hate to go back a few posts, but I wanted to comment on this:

Let me rephrase that, I actually do have an interest in her gender. I think that it is important that everyone, including women know that they are just as free as anyone else to participate in the political process, and are not looked down on because of their gender. I think that if the first ever female President of the United States was an idiot, corrupt, etc it would make people doubt the ability of women to handle such a position. I think that it is important that the first woman be as good as the best man (Reagan), and I think Palin fits that ticket.

I respect your whole "women should be equal thing"; and yeah, women deserve the same respect as men; the deciding factor should be proving yourself. But like someone said earlier, I think Hillary Clinton basically proved that women can "break the glass ceiling." If it weren't for Obama, she would have been a shoe-in for president. Nobody even thought to question her eligibility for president until her campaign brought it up when she ran against Obama, and in a race against McCain, who would have doubtless have pulled as many underhanded moves as he did against Obama regarding her eligibility for president (because she was a woman, as opposed to black) it would have been easy to play the charisma card, something the Clintons have always been damn good at. It's almost a shame that she wasn't nominated, because she would have shown how much of an idiot Palin is by comparison (not that I feel too partial to Clinton, or anybody in politics, for that matter) although, to be fair, Palin would have never ended up in the limelight if Clinton had been nominated (or maybe... she would have been a good vote stealer; then again, a black man would be better, considering that Obama lost -- but I digress.)

Anyhow, I have listened to her plenty, and I don't think she's qualified. And that's not based on interviews, or plenty of other news sources I could have based my opinion on, but rather on the VP debate. She really came off as being at the level of Dan Quayle: she think's she's really smart and she's hot ****, but she's not. She should rely on her advisers a LOT more to sell herself, because she makes it painfully clear how inarticulate, if not incompetent, she is when she tries to defend a political position. She also has a bad habit of milking media attention; it makes her look desperate. The only other person who I have seen doing what she has done in the past year is Al Gore, and who the hell wants to listen to him? If a woman wants to be president, fine. But just like every man who runs, she should be qualified, and I don't see that in Palin.

Also, if you were to compare her to a good conservative president, you should bring up someone like Eisenhower, or Nixon (pre-Watergate, that is), people who actually managed to legitimately unite the nation, and lead it well. The only reason President Jellybeans ever won in such a landslide was because he played off of a movement of paranoia and craziness and reactions to the Cold War. People who have followed his model have inevitably met with very mixed results, because he is far too polarizing, not to mention that Obama won on a platform of working together (whether or not he followed up on it is debatable, but he sure as hell won.) That might not be a good sign for someone as polarizing as Palin.

[Vuk]

And Obama doesn't? You seem to be assuming she isn't running against anyone.

But after a term of failures, Obama's optimism will hardly be appealing. Palin offers common sense solutions that have worked in the past, and that will give people a real reason to be optimistic.

Weren't you one of the ones complaining about people voting for Obama whilst using his race as a justification because you just described why that would be fine. Also the highlighted bit shows why we need a female feminist to come to power somewhere. You seem to take it that the word "everyone" could be construed as "excluding women", and hence the need for a linguistic change is palpable. By a feminist coming to power this change will be accelerated as the discourse of gender power relations is inverted. A female who is not a feminist will not have this same ability as she will still frame discourse in masculinist terms.

I did not justify people voting on the basis of race. I said outright that race/sex/etc should not affect your decision. I simply said that her being voted in (as opposed to someone like Hillary) will be good for women as it will affect people's perception of their gender. And no I did not say that everyone excludes women, but simply drew attention to women as it is what was significant about what I was saying. Stop acting like the media please. And no, a feminist would be the worst thing for both men and women. What we need is either a man or a woman who do not see themselves in terms of men or women, but of humans. Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.

I fear I may have wandered from the point again though.

No surprise. ;)

Vuk

[Vuk]

I hate to go back a few posts, but I wanted to comment on this:


I respect your whole "women should be equal thing"; and yeah, women deserve the same respect as men; the deciding factor should be proving yourself. But like someone said earlier, I think Hillary Clinton basically proved that women can "break the glass ceiling." If it weren't for Obama, she would have been a shoe-in for president. Nobody even thought to question her eligibility for president until her campaign brought it up when she ran against Obama, and in a race against McCain, who would have doubtless have pulled as many underhanded moves as he did against Obama regarding her eligibility for president (because she was a woman, as opposed to black) it would have been easy to play the charisma card, something the Clintons have always been damn good at. It's almost a shame that she wasn't nominated, because she would have shown how much of an idiot Palin is by comparison (not that I feel too partial to Clinton, or anybody in politics, for that matter) although, to be fair, Palin would have never ended up in the limelight if Clinton had been nominated (or maybe... she would have been a good vote stealer; then again, a black man would be better, considering that Obama lost -- but I digress.)

Anyhow, I have listened to her plenty, and I don't think she's qualified. And that's not based on interviews, or plenty of other news sources I could have based my opinion on, but rather on the VP debate. She really came off as being at the level of Dan Quayle: she think's she's really smart and she's hot ****, but she's not. She should rely on her advisers a LOT more to sell herself, because she makes it painfully clear how inarticulate, if not incompetent, she is when she tries to defend a political position. She also has a bad habit of milking media attention; it makes her look desperate. The only other person who I have seen doing what she has done in the past year is Al Gore, and who the hell wants to listen to him? If a woman wants to be president, fine. But just like every man who runs, she should be qualified, and I don't see that in Palin.

Also, if you were to compare her to a good conservative president, you should bring up someone like Eisenhower, or Nixon (pre-Watergate, that is), people who actually managed to legitimately unite the nation, and lead it well. The only reason President Jellybeans ever won in such a landslide was because he played off of a movement of paranoia and craziness and reactions to the Cold War. People who have followed his model have inevitably met with very mixed results, because he is far too polarizing, not to mention that Obama won on a platform of working together (whether or not he followed up on it is debatable, but he sure as hell won.) That might not be a good sign for someone as polarizing as Palin.

The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.
As far as the VP debate, the McCain aids instructed her to be non-committal whenever possible, to avoid answering real questions, and basically did not let her be herself. Considering the restrictions placed upon her, I would say that she did pretty darned well.

As far as good conservative presidents, Eisenhower is anything but. I think I would rather slit my wrists than see another Eisenhower. Nixon had some really good points, but was a complete *** on others. Reagan was not a flipflopper, that is the truth. I would not hold that against him though. Not only did he win by a landslide, but he was one of the best Presidents that we have ever had.

[spmetla]

If she does, I'm moving to Mars.

If it comes to that please reserve a seat on that rocket ship for me.

[CountArach]

But after a term of failures, Obama's optimism will hardly be appealing. Palin offers common sense solutions that have worked in the past, and that will give people a real reason to be optimistic.

You talk of these but are very short on detail. Elaborate please?

Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.

You have clearly never had an intellectual discussion with a feminist. I have had many and you could not be more wrong.

[Vuk]

You talk of these but are very short on detail. Elaborate please?

You have clearly never had an intellectual discussion with a feminist. I have had many and you could not be more wrong.

In fact, I have had many intellectual discussions with feminists. Two of my professors who I have had many classes with are women's studies/history professors and most of the classes I have taken with them have been on women's issues. As such I have unfortunately been subjected to reading a lot of feminist literature and associating with a lot of feminists. What I said about feminists defining themselves primarily as women actually comes from a prominent feminist WWII historian.
And no, if you are wondering, I do not have a high opinion of feminism. (nor any other form of sexism or any forms of racism)
Every feminist I know talks about gender as if they are crusaders fighting a holy war, and they define their enemies and talk about battle grounds. An article I had to read for a class this semester for instance (by another prominent feminist WWII historian coincidently) defined the enemies of free women as men and women who put the safety and health of children before the free opportunity of women in the workforce. I almost cried when I read that. Feminism makes me sick to my stomach.

EDIT: A feminist is not someone concerned with equality, but with women's issues. When women were discriminated against by the government, equality was a woman's issue. If it was just about equality they would not be called feminists, they would be called something gender neutral.

[Watchman]

Good thing WW2 -era thinking isn't majorly outdated in general or anything. Also I can't help but notice you failed to answer to CA's query concerning your prophecy of Obama's tenure.

[CountArach]

Modern Structuralist/Postmodern-based feminism is not the same as WWII-era Feminism at all. The former came out of the philosophical thoughts of the 60s-80s and is still in development. The latter came out of inerpretations of Marxist literature and to an extent Phenomenology

[seireikhaan]

No, I don't think she'll win.

There's a few reasons, some highlighted in the thread. But for me, I think there's one big reason she won't win.

She's a quitter. Quitter, quitter, quitter. She can have all the snarkey, "tough" talk she can roll off her tongue, but when it comes down to it, she quit her first hugely politically significant job. And I've yet to hear a reason that doesn't involve her succumbing the pressures of others. If she was doing such a good job of governing her state, and she truly had the constitution she claims to have, then she wouldn't quit.

[Vuk]

Good thing WW2 -era thinking isn't majorly outdated in general or anything. Also I can't help but notice you failed to answer to CA's query concerning your prophecy of Obama's tenure.

I did not mean writers from WWII Watchman, but people who study and write about WWII. :P
As far as his failures, he has failed to put the economy back on track and will continue to fail at it, as the only things he is doing are counter-productive. It does not matter if his health care bill passes or does not, because one way nothing gets done and there is still a problem, and the other way something really bad is done. Either way it is hardly a victory. His foreign policy is naive and inept, and considering what liberal presidents like him do, and how volatile the current situation is in the world, there is a good chance that he will get us involved in wars as well (though he will probably wait till his second term for that.) When people see that the government is more corrupt than ever before, and that we are just getting more of the same, but to the 50th degree, they will hardly view his term as a success. No doubt though he will do what liberals usually do and let up on his BS socialist programs for a little while so that the economy starts to make some kind of small recovery right before the election so that he can claim a success, but it will not last after the election.

[CountArach]

Feel good to get that off your chest?

[Vuk]

No, I don't think she'll win.

There's a few reasons, some highlighted in the thread. But for me, I think there's one big reason she won't win.

She's a quitter. Quitter, quitter, quitter. She can have all the snarkey, "tough" talk she can roll off her tongue, but when it comes down to it, she quit her first hugely politically significant job. And I've yet to hear a reason that doesn't involve her succumbing the pressures of others. If she was doing such a good job of governing her state, and she truly had the constitution she claims to have, then she wouldn't quit.

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state. That takes guts. She is no quitter, she just knows how to pick her territory.

[Watchman]

I did not mean writers from WWII Watchman, but people who study and write about WWII. :P

Okay bear with me here and explain - how's that in any manner relevant to present-day feminism ?

As far as his failures, he has failed to put the economy back on track and will continue to fail at it, as the only things he is doing are counter-productive. It does not matter if his health care bill passes or does not, because one way nothing gets done and there is still a problem, and the other way something really bad is done. Either way it is hardly a victory. His foreign policy is naive and inept, and considering what liberal presidents like him do, and how volatile the current situation is in the world, there is a good chance that he will get us involved in wars as well (though he will probably wait till his second term for that.) When people see that the government is more corrupt than ever before, and that we are just getting more of the same, but to the 50th degree, they will hardly view his term as a success. No doubt though he will do what liberals usually do and let up on his BS socialist programs for a little while so that the economy starts to make some kind of small recovery right before the election so that he can claim a success, but it will not last after the election.

May I ask you the manufacturer of your crystal ball ?

[Vuk]

Okay bear with me here and explain - how's that in any manner relevant to present-day feminism ?
May I ask you the manufacturer of your crystal ball ?

They are modern feminists applying a modern feminist view point to history. I don't mean to turn this into a debate about feminism (the thread is derailed enough), but suffice it to say that what I have witness about feminism turns me off to it. It is illogical, grounded in bad reasoning, selfishness, and only divides. It provides no benefit to men or women, only harm.

EDIT: Who manufactured my crystal ball? A company called History Doesn't Lie Inc.

EDIT 2: I am going to bed now, so I will not reply till tomorrow.

[Watchman]

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state.

Indeed. At least she's not *entirely* oblivious to facts then.

You know that wording was just asking for it.

[seireikhaan]

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state. That takes guts. She is no quitter, she just knows how to pick her territory.

So her being in charge of the state government of Alaska was not in the best interests of the state of Alaska. That's basically what you're saying?

[Ice]

First of all let me say that that is just sick and wrong of you Ice. In fact, it is degenerate and evil. I have a very strong dislike for Obama as a President and as a person, but I would never in my life condone any acts of violence against him. (even if just for the respect of his office alone)
I really hope that that was a twisted joke of some kind.

It's not evil to seek death upon someone who would ruin the lives of millions, or even billions of people so bite me, Vik. Comparing that lunatic to our current president must be the sick joke here.

[Samurai Waki]

If Palin were to ever win, I would do as she thinks of herself "goin' rogue" I hate that woman, I hate her politics, I even hate the way she talks. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about her.

China sounds like an awfully tempting place to go if that were to ever happen (and it won't).

[Beskar]

The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.

Like how they kept attacking and keep attacking Obama for being Black? Then they come up with these wild conspiracy theories saying he isn't American just because he is black. Though Mc Cain wasn't even born in America. (he was born in an US foriegn army base)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why Sarah Palin? Why can't it be a woman like Linda Lingle? Sensible, calm, rational, even-handed, experienced, and with a good politician's voice to top it off? I'd support her for President.

[Watchman]

Because it's the GOP, and they're idiots ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because it's the GOP, and they're idiots ?

No, they are not. No more than the Democrats, or many other parties, at any rate.