When Love Blinds
My good friend and mentor Joshua Livestro – columnist for newspaper De Telegraaf and founder of Dageljkse Standaard – reacted for Conservatives4Palin to my post entitled “Palin’s Popularity Dips.” Being the Palin-fan he is, Joshua criticizes me for taking a Washington Post poll at face value and using it as evidence of Palin’s inability to win a nationwide election.
Unable – or is it unwilling? – to see the WaPo poll for what it is, namely a politically motivated push poll cut out of whole cloth for the purpose of ‘phraming’ Palin’s farewell speech as Governor this coming Sunday as being merely another step on the inevitable road to oblivion, Michael decides to act as if the poll contains actually relevant pieces of data. I mean come on Michael, you’re a serious citizen journalist. A poll that oversamples Democrats vs. Republicans by a good four or five percent (33D 22R), and that doesn’t even use registered voters, let alone the infinitely more reliable category of likely voters, is not a serious poll and doesn’t deserve to be treated like one. You know this as well as I do (as does your friend AP, whose anti-Palin hackery is getting beyond the stage of deeply tiresome), and still you decide to write about this poll as if it is divinely inspired. What possible motive could you have for this, apart from trying to promote the cause of your candidate by trying to damage that of one of his main contenders?
Sadly for Joshua, Rasmussen confirms what everybody not blinded by love (lust?) already knew: Romney has a much better chance of beating Obama than Palin. Romney is especially doing well among unaffiliated voters; you know, the ones who truly cast the decisive votes in elections.
Now don’t get me wrong. Palin still has time to improve her image, and to convince a majority of voters she’d make a competent president. But she’ll work hard at it, and her supporters will have to stop ignoring her rather obvious weaknesses.
That is, unless they want her to be nothing more than an empty symbol of ‘perfect conservatism,’ without any real political power.
I understand that the 2012 presidential race began, in essence, the day after the 2008 election ended. Still, I just think that it’s way too early to make useful “horse race” predictions for Palin, Romney, and other potential candidates. For sake of argument, let’s assume that Palin has what it takes to be President . . .
To begin with, if Sarah Palin has aspirations to the presidency, she’d need to do some serious studying for a few years, engaging in policy matters, somewhat along the lines of Margaret Thatcher’s suggestions (although Palin does not need a speech coach). Some might respond, “Obama got elected with no executive experience,” but his failures are likely to spur 2012 voters to prioritize factors like executive experience, competence, and grizzled wisdom. I don’t see Palin being able to convince voters that she embodies those traits as early as 2011 – 2012.
Also, athough I agree with Joshua Livestro that the Washington Post poll is a poor sample, Palin’s negatives are quite high nonetheless. She’d also need to bolster her image gradually over time by contributing to political accomplishments that become part of a popular political movement (or trends). I expect that there will be a backlash against the “progressive” overreach starting in 2010, but I’d be surprised if Palin will be ready to capitalize on that surge right away. It might take years for Palin to rebuild her “brand.” At first, she’d have to go over/around a skeptical-to-hostile mainstream media. Eventually, as she built more and more connections to voters, organizations, etc., the media might be forced to repect her political capital or risk losing even more readers, viewers. In this short-attention-span world, it’s not unthinkable that Palin could be ready by 2012, but she probably has a long way to go.
With Romney, I always go back to the question: How could he have fared so poorly in the 2008 primary campaign? If he were to run again in 2012, what would be different this time?
If I’m making very premature “stab in the dark” horse race predictions – using the parameters I outlined above – I’d chalk Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels as the very early favorites to win the 2012 Republican primary campaign.
The bottom line is that Obama, if he could pick his Republican opponent for 2012, would be torn between Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. Either of those two would make John McCain’s 2008 campaign look like a hall of fame performance that got robbed somehow. And that is saying quite a bit given how bad a campaign that was.
It’s this simple: Huckabee was popular because he was funny, yet he was only competitive regionally; Palin does have a broader appeal, but the same dynamic is at play. Furthermore, Palin has placed three obstacles in front of herself: quitting the job Alaskans elected her to, maturing past her inability to refrain from petty feudal drama with any level of critic, and overcoming her image of someone who is of questionable intelligence.
I’m not saying I agree with all of the above, but that’s what’s on her plate and much of it is of her own doing. She certainly has been treated unfairly and so I’m willing to keep and open mind as she sets forth doing whatever it is she’s going to do. We all like a pretty face reinforcing our opinions, but if the next year-and-a-half goes by she’s not improved, then she’s not going to be electable as President (not many people are); let’s not waste resources and emotion.
Now, I’d like to add a point I don’t see in the analysis above. It points out that Romney is polling even with Obama overall, and doing better (by 7 points I think it is) among unaffiliated voters. Presuming they are the same group as Independents, that means the world. As it was said, they decide the election. When John McCain, the Democrats’ Republican, can rake in rank-and-file Republican votes like he did in 2008, the focus of our platform should clear. The salient point here is that Independents now outnumber registered Democrats, who always outnumber registered Republcians.
Patrick, your analysis on how far Palin must progress in so short a time is correct; it’s a tall order and she will likely not be able to pull it off.
I disagree, though, and don’t see how Romney fared poorly in 2008. I’ve heard people just say that he had the best organization. I’ve heard people say he was the most typical Republican and yet he failed to secure the nomination. Well, that’s like people just saying he was also a flip-flopper. In other words, they had little to criticize so they hammer the pigeonhole principle.
While there is validity in saying he failed to secure the nomination despite his broad spectrum Republican appeal, the dynamic of Bush and Republican fatigue was tangibly material. Remember the whole of the GOP field was doing a balancing act on how to distance themselves from Bush yet not turnoff party voters, the base. As it turned out, the guy who was the least Republican of them got the nod. How’d that happen?
Looking at the field and the structure of the primaries, it’s evident that McCain was kept alive by open primaries and crossover voters, firstly. Secondly, while Romney was scoring best among Republican voters, he was also having social conservative votes syphoned off by both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. McCain, contrarily, benefitted from Rudy’s (John’s moderate-to-liberal competitor and close friend) swordfall. So McCain was free to hoard those votes while Romney was fighting for the base with two others.
Let’s not forget the big name factor either. Huckabee and Romney were virtually unknown candidates compared to McCain, Rudy, and Fred Thompson. The second and third tier behind them were recognizable figures either from the fringe or from earlier presidential runs or both. Despite all this, Romney was made the primary target of DNC attacks until McCain had secured the nomination; they were threatened by his competence, his ability, his intelligence, his articulation, his temperment, his moral conditioning, et cetera. So with this in context, while Mike Huckabee clearly got the best bang for the buck, I don’t see it as an accurate assessment that Romney performed badly; he’s the only viable candidate from 2008 and his stature within the party and among independents and moderates and conservatives has only risen, in spite of all labels.
It should also be pointed out that parallel to Romney’s rising support among Independents is the plummet of his negative numbers, which were very high in 2008 due to the GOP field aligning against him alongside the DNC’s sordid efforts to predefine an unknown figure nationally. So, if the current state of affairs in Washington DC and the economy persist into the 2012 election, Republicans couldn’t fictionalize a better-suited candidate to defrock President Obama than Mitt Romney.
DS: excellent analysis on the Romney 2008 campaign. Rather than suggesting that Romney “fared so poorly,” I should have asked why did Romney – who, on paper, had so much going for him – fail to live up to expectations? If you’re grading him on a curve, it’s tempting to say that he underperformed, given his resources, organization, experience, good looks, etc. But you make good points about other factors, which were not Romney’s “fault,” that worked against him 2008. There was also the Mormon factor, but that one was not unique to the 2008 dynamics – unfortunately, it will probably follow Romney into the future, as ridiculous as that is.
As for your last point: if those trends continue, Romney’s potential strength among independents would help him in the general election for sure, but it might also give him a better showing in those open primaries that hurt him in 2008.
Still, on my way too early to set the odds chalkboard, I’d still put Jindal and Daniels with the best odds.
Michael, Michael, Michael. You disappoint me, Mike. Are you suggesting I back Gov. Palin because she’s goodlooking? That may be what you moderates use to select your candidates (you certainly seem to harping on a lot about the Mittrosexual Man’s supposed ‘good looks’ – personally, I’d be a bit worried if I were your fiancee…), but for a proper conservative like myself, looks don’t really come into it. I explained why I backed Palin in this article – http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/03/why-i-support-palin-and-no-its-not-just-to-get-on-michaels-nerves/ – and I have nothing to add to that.
As for your daydream about Romney’s chances in 2012 – whatever dude. He might do well in one theoretical matchup with Obama (though I note that in the recent PPP poll, Romney fared worse than Palin, Huckabee and even Gingrich in a direct contest with Obama), but you sort of ignore the point I made in my post: he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through the primaries, so it doesn’t really matter how he does in these theoretical contests. Conservative republicans (i.e. the vast majority of the electorate in the primaries) won’t vote for Romney because they know he isn’t really one of them. He should stop pretending he is, and start running as himself. They might actually end up respecting him more (though they still won’t vote for him).
Thanks Patrick, and I also agree that it’s far too early.
Obe’s only been in office half a year and odds are the economy will improve in the next couple years — especially if the public-option-addled healthcare proposal fails or is stripped down, and cape & trade is defeated. If the bluedog Democrats resist until the more bureaucratic government controls within such legislation is removed or (presuming Republicans recalibrate Obama’s congress in the upcoming midterms) such legislation drags past 2010, then Obama could easily win a second term if he moderates himself just as Clinton did for the second half of his first term. However, it’s yet to be seen if Obama is as pragmatic as Bill or if he’s more ridden with idealism. I tend to sense it’s the latter, but do presume at some point he’ll do what’s politically feasible for the next election. Of course, he has foreign policy pitfall potential all over the place too, which could doom him no matter what in 12.
———–
Joshua, are you arguing that the Republican party is best off with only conservatives? On what criteria do you disqualify Mitt Romney from all aspects of conservatism? Is Mike Huckabee “a conservative”? Was George W. Bush? Reagan? What conservative merit badge does Sarah Palin hold above all others?
Mike Huckabee (WILL) win the Presidential nomination in 2012.
His Fan base is this phenomenally large covering 50 states & 352 counties & growing:
>>> http://www.freewebs.com/huckapedia
Agree with the author and DS…there’s no way Palin can win the Presidency, especially after quitting her job…pathetic. And if she can’t win, neither can TV’s Mike Huckabee. I don’t care if they have large fan bases. If that meant anything, Miley Cyrus would be President.
“When Love Blinds” is right. It seems to me that Palin commands devotion that perhaps is only slightly outstripped by Barack Obama and Ron Paul.
And we know what conservatives thought and continue to think about the devotion Obama gets from his fans. Will we see such terms as The “Palinessiah” come up soon?
Just saying…
Palinessiah! That’s a good one. Maybe she could just walk to Russia…even in the summertime!
It’s amazing people still think either Palin or Romney can still seriously participate in a nationwide election for President.
If his flip-flop-flip on abortion as he pursued the office of Governor of Massachusetts, and then the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination doesn’t resurface and damage Romney in 2012….which it will….his badly failing healthcare plan in Massachusetts will finish him off. Considering the front-row seat that the healthcare debate has taken among voters, especially conservatives who let him off the hook on his abortion flip-flop, I want to see Romney wiggle out of this one. He could hardly be identified with an issue more damaging, and he owns that one.
Romney is toast in 2012, and for all her honesty and energy Sarah Palin’s crash courses in world affairs will do her little good by the time the foreign policy of Barack Obama (another amateur) receives its damage assessment.
Huckabee at least served 2 1/2 terms as Governor, not 2 1/2 years like Palin….and has held consistent views on a good number of major issues both foreign and domestic with conservatives, unlike Romney’s chameleon act up in Massachusetts with abortion and things like business “fees” (taxes). So Huckabee’s so-called pro-tax approach to governing Arkansas was way overblown in light of the fact that the Arkansas legislature was as heavily favored toward the Democratic Party as Romney’s adopted state of Massachusetts. The bottom line is that Huckabee left behind a 1 billion dollar surplus when he left office and a vastly improved highway system and student test scores. Romney has given Massachusetts a universal healthcare mess that is now being held up as an embarrassing “model” to be avoided….and rightly so.
I’ll be voting for Mike Huckabee in 2012. He may not win as a result of the same paper thin investigation that voters took in handing us the disaster we now have in the Whitehouse, but IMO he’s the best candidate and I’ll vote for him with no reservations at all.
Yeah, that’s true. Unfortunately, since one of his consistent views seems to be anti-Mormon bigotry, I will never vote for him and neither will the actual Mormons who make up a rather large chunk of the Republican base in many states.
Someone with Huckabee’s virtues but without his wink-nudge acceptance of anti-Mormonism would be much better. I think Tim Pawlenty might be emerging as that candidate.