Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Sarah Palin Will Not Be the Republican Nominee

Wednesday, 22nd September 2010

Peter Beinart says the GOP is "her party now". Robert Lane Greene at the Economist says "she has to be considered the front-runner." Jon Chait and David Frum agree. So does Paul Mirengoff. Andrew Sullivan, unsurprisingly, asks "who can beat her?" Standing athwart this tide of pessimism - for none of those cited here want Palin to be the Republican nominee - are Ross Douthat and Daniel Larison.

I agree with Douthat and Larison. The case for presidential-nominee Palin rests upon the weakness of the field putatively lined up against her. (Assuming she runs herself, as I think she will.) It ignores the weaknesses of her own candidacy. Her support is deep but narrow and it is hard to see where she can win new supporters and those that she has already are not, probably, sufficiently numerous to win the nomination. How many currently undecided voters will break for Palin - the one candidate about whom almost everyone has already made up their mind? She is, if this is true, close to her maximum level of support already. Where do her extra votes come from?

Secondly, while there are plenty of conservatives who like the idea, at some level, of President Palin many of these sympathisers also suspect, however regrettably, that it's unlikely she can win the Presidency. Even though 66% of Republicans have a favourable view of the lapsed-Governor, just 24% of those conservatives say they plan on voting for Palin.

Or, look at it another way: despite doing everything she can to appeal to the conservative base Palin is polling no better, and often worse, than Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich. She came fifth in the Values Voters Summit straw poll, winning just 7% of the votes cast. If Palin really were the undisputed front-runner we'd expect her to enjoy a lead in the polls right now. At this stage of the cycle one thing is clear: she's no Hillary Clinton. If she is the front-runner she might be the weakest GOP front-runner since Gerald Ford.

Nor does the current success of the Tea Party movement (and of Palin-endorsed candidates) necessarily prove much. There's all the difference in the world between off-year primaries and the Presidential campaign season. In one voters are free to endorse their favourites; in the other they consider who might actually win in the general election. There will be a lot of "I like Sarah but I don't think she can win..."

Relatively few nominees in recent times have been chosen with any great measure of enthusiasm. Dole? Meh. Gore? Meh. McCain? Meh. Kerry? Super-meh. Granted, they all lost against opponents who did arouse enthusiasm from their supporters and this, I guess, may be Palin's best argument for her candidacy. But it's not enough to be some people's first choice, you also need to be other people's second-choice. How many second-preferences does Palin have? (That is: how many voters will plump for her once their favoured candidate is out the race or if they feel that their favoured candidate, alas, can't win?)

Practical considerations will also play a part. Palin hasn't been put on the spot, far less had to defend herself under-pressure since the 2008 election. But she won't be able to duck the rigours of a Presidential campaign. The hustings and debates will matter and will help decide which candidates are deemed "viable" not just by the media but by the voters too. And there will be many more of those voters in a Presidential primary than there are in off-year contests. (Would Sarah Palin win a GOP presidential primary in Delaware? I doubt it.)

Whatever her merits Sarah Palin is a minority taste within the GOP right now. What evidence is there to support the notion that, if the field were narrowed to two candidates, she would take home more than half the votes? She's going to have to run a "This is my sensibility" campaign, not a "This is my record" race. That too makes her task more difficult. At some point candidates have to have credible answers to that "What would you do?" question. Does Palin have those answers?

One final thought: things can change very quickly. In October and even November 2007 Howard Dean was the "inevitable" Democratic nominee. We remember how that turned-out don't we?

So while the temper of the conservative movement right now seems to favour Palin the limits of her appeal are also apparent. And since the GOP has decided to award delegates on a proportional rather than winner-takes-all basis also suggests the party establishment (damn them!) is hedging against any candidate romping to victory on the basis of the enthusiasm of a relatively small number of enthusiasts in small, early-voting states.

Sure, if the United States is still in an economic slump in 2011 then perhaps Palin's chances improve. But slogans and bromides and the rest of it aren't usually enough. If America decides it's tiref of Obama it will want a candidate with answers and plans. And that, at present, does not seem to be Palin's long suit.

In other words, she ain't gonna be the nominee. Probably...

Filed under: 2012 (167 more articles) , Americana (479 more articles) , GOP (332 more articles) , Palin (59 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (19)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

DavidDP

September 22nd, 2010 10:58pm Report this comment

Small mercies, etc etc....

But it would probably help the GOP get all this nonsense out of its system.

Baron

September 23rd, 2010 1:03am Report this comment

DavidDP @ 10.58:

and who, if I may ask, are you to tell the American unwashed what to do, ha? Another messiah? America already has one, he keeps f***g up, haven’t you noticed?

More pain to come to the likes of you and ndm, sir, just wait abit.

DavidDP

September 23rd, 2010 9:28am Report this comment

The "American unwashed"?

FF

September 23rd, 2010 12:50pm Report this comment

She got herself elected - by big margins - in Alaska. As far as I know the only election she has lost was the US vice presedential election where she was obviously the smaller part of the ticket.

Fiona

September 23rd, 2010 1:38pm Report this comment

There's no doubt that Palin made a complete ass of herself (in more ways than one) during her ill-fated partnership McCain. It was clearly too much, too soon.

However, it's unwise to underestimate the draw of the "real deal" in politics, and that's her USP. Yes she needs backers, experience and a bit of polish, but she has time on her side. Even if she doesn't get the presidential nomination this time around, she has established quite a following.

There is something about her appeal that reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's ability to persuade voters of all classes that she was one of them.

I've got to stop now, I'm scaring myself.

Andy

September 23rd, 2010 1:38pm Report this comment

She got herself elected by big margins in Alaska?

Spray an elephant red and plonk it in Juneau and that elephant wins by a landslide against any Democrat.

Arguably she tipped the balance against McCain during the Summer of 2008 when he perhaps had the slight edge in the polls over Barack Obama (who's stock was albeit in constant ascendancy after he achieved the Democratic nomination).

Volatile, openly and self-contratulatingly ignorant, protectionist and shrill - she is a metaphor for the current malaise of the Ameican Dream.

Conservative Cabbie

September 23rd, 2010 1:41pm Report this comment

Alex

If you place so much emphasis on the Value Voters Summit straw poll, I look forward to your post on Mike Pence (who won it) as a Presidential candidate. Or we can ignore a straw poll as completely unscientific and meaningless.

dirtyrichpolitical

September 23rd, 2010 2:30pm Report this comment

Thankyou John Mccain, for unleashing this monster into mainstream US politics.

This just sums up the Mccain leagacy.

Sarah Palin.

Conservative Cabbie

September 23rd, 2010 2:39pm Report this comment

andy said:

"Arguably she tipped the balance against McCain during the Summer of 2008 when he perhaps had the slight edge in the polls over Barack Obama"

That's not what happened. McCain's support collapsed in mid September following a convention bounce. Guess what else happened in mid-september? The collapse of Lehman Brothers and the American economy.

Pot Head

September 23rd, 2010 2:48pm Report this comment

And whatever happend to Bobby Jindal.. Everyone was bigging him up, until he opened his mouth..

Palin will fall to pieces under the rigours of the primaries, let alone the GE.. Still, I really hope she does run, be the best fun in years, but she'll have to put a contract out on Tina Fey first.

Snowman

September 23rd, 2010 2:53pm Report this comment

can she be any worse than Obama is the question, to which the answer clearly is 'nope.'?

Stuart Eels

September 23rd, 2010 3:22pm Report this comment

You are all ranting one way or another, now be honest don't you fancy her? I do and would vote for her for that reason alone!

Sir Graphus

September 23rd, 2010 4:34pm Report this comment

I used to post in Pavlovian fashion; any column about Palin, and I'd reply as witheringly as I could manage about her obvious studidity. Certainly, her pride in her ignorance and refusal to accept that problems were more complicated than her narrow understanding ought, in a sane world, to disqualify her from senior public office, particularly in light of George W's disastrous Presidency.

However, the 1 thing she's been very clever about is to become the focus for the opposition to Obama. Incumbency has a huge advantage in the US because there is no leader of the opposition until a couple of months before the Presidential election. She's managed to fill that void.

However, she's a v divisive figure, so when it comes down to it, there will be an anyone-but-Palin candidate, and that candidate will win.

Conservative Cabbie

September 23rd, 2010 4:42pm Report this comment

Sir Graphus

She's not divisive within the Republican Party. In almost every poll of notable Republicans, she gets the highest approval from Republican voters. Certainly she has to change their view of her from just liking her to thinking she can be President, but those aren't grounds for a "anyone but Palin" candidate.

However, come a general election, an "anyone but Obama" candidate will likely do very well if the current electoral atmosphere is anything to go by.

Thucydides

September 23rd, 2010 5:50pm Report this comment

Conservative Cabbie,

Your willingness to leap to Palin's defence is touching, but I note that you have not actually said that you think that she would be a good candidate for the GOP against Obama.

Conservative Cabbie

September 23rd, 2010 8:28pm Report this comment

Thucydides

"you have not actually said that you think that she would be a good candidate for the GOP against Obama."

I wrote a post about it on my blog, and yes, I do think she would be a good candidate against Obama. I've got plenty of polling data to back it up, but I get the feeling people get a bit tired of me posting polling data so I decided not to do it this time.

I'm torn. I really like what Palin stands for - a populist very small government conservatism and justified distrust of the ruling elite classes. As she was an excellent Governor, so do I think she would be an excellent President.

Having said that, there is a more pragmatic side to me that recognises that she doesn't represent a particularly big tent and that for her to become President, the political environment needs to be more like today than like 2008. To that end, I'm also very keen on the Mitch Daniels/Chris Christie type of Republican Governor - economic conservatives but less ideological as to the size of government. If he could get through the primary, Mitch Daniels would slaughter Obama in a general election.

OK. I can't resist one bit of polling evidence. PPP recently released one of their hypothetical 2012 match up polls which had Obama beating Palin 49-43. But the PPP likely voter model allows 2008 voters into its mix. If you base the same polling responses on a 2004 electorate, Palin actually beats Obama 47-44. The question is, will the 2012 electorate be like the 2008 one or the 2004 one? I think the latter for the following reasons: There is no electing of the first black President to excite people, there is no immediate financial crisis, no war for Obama to run on, Obama now has a record to run against and those voters that so bolstered his last campaign (the youth and African-Americans) are those most affected by the continuing recession.

So yes, I think Obama is beatable, even by Palin.

daniel maris

September 24th, 2010 2:32am Report this comment

I am praying she never has hand over the big red button.

She's a complete joke. A provincial politician who needs to stay in the provinces.

Great choice if it's between her and Obama!

lombard

September 24th, 2010 2:52pm Report this comment

"However, it's unwise to underestimate the draw of the "real deal" in politics, and that's her USP."

I agree that she may remind many of a "real person" as opposed to a professional politician. Unfortunately for her, I think she reminds too many of the type of real person they can't stand: a vapid, nuevo riche, meddlesome, and power hungry middle-aged Barbie who insists on drawing attention and throwing her weight around even if she doesn't have much of a clue about the issue at hand.

Ronnie

September 27th, 2010 12:46pm Report this comment

The Republican primaries for the nomination will be a very bloody civil war, perhaps worse than what we saw between Obama and Clinton last time.

Palin and the Tea Party movement will be at their most hysterically divisive but their targets will be within the GOP, not the Democrats. Then, if she gets through this, she will have to find a credible running made from among the bodies left out on the field.

That will be interesting.

I refuse to consider her being elected Head of State of the most powerful country on earth.

Post comment