2012 Poll: Will Palin Run for POTUS?

[dusred]

There's been some discussion about it so I decided it is new-thread worthy.

Personally I don't think she'll run. The negativity surrounding her is just too great. If she does run I seriously doubt she'll win. Furthermore I don't think she's President material. I consider her and Obama in the same boat - I would have either as a neighbor, friend, boss, or co-worker but given the choice I wouldn't have either for president. I like them personally and think they're good, loving parents/family people. . . the kind of people you'd enjoy having a beer with.

So, place your votes and when 2012 rolls around we'll see who was right.

This poll isn't whether Palin will make a good president of whether you would/wouldn't like to see her run. Vote if you do/don't think she'll run.

[heliochrome85]

She refuses to answer questions on whether she will run or not. She released some very high budget PAC videos this year. She has been touring the US annointing new candidates. This is all stuff one does if they are putting together a run.

If she doesnt run, she would have closed the window of opportunity on herself.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if she did, but 2012's a long ways away right now.

[mattblancarte]

I would be surprised at this point if she doesn't run for POTUS.

[srellim234]

She will run only if she sees it as an easy path to increased bucks personally (book writing, speaking, political campaign donations she gets to keep, etc.). I don't see her as capable or interested in actually doing the job. She's the type of person who will take the easy way out and bail if the going gets tough.

[Bubba1]

I would be surprised at this point if she doesn't run for POTUS.

I have little doubt she'll attempt a run for POTUS. But I don't see her winning the Republican nomination. I think Tina Fey's impression of Palin would stand a better chance than Palin.

[stebo0728]

I dont think she will run either. Its alot easier to b*tch about whats not being done when u arent the one having to do it all. And no that is not a comment of support for the current POTUS either, but increasingly I view SP as more of a motivator than an actual doer. If she were to get put in postition to have to actually do all the things she is advocating, she sets herself up for failure.

[HashiriyaS14]

She'll run for the publicity and then drop out. She'll blame her exit on someone or something, and make money complaining about it on television to an enraptured audience. Nice gig if you can get it, and I don't actually see anything wrong with it.

[bigbadberry3]

If she runs I think BO could be a two term prez.

[stebo0728]

If she runs I think BO could be a two term prez.

(God/Allah/The Great Witch) help us all!

[HashiriyaS14]

If she runs I think BO could be a two term prez.

I honestly think he's going to be anyway, or at least that he would be if the election was held now.

Everyone thinks I'm nuts though. I think that, at least with it's current head of steam, the Tea Party influence upon the GOP would yield a primary winner that would be too far to the right for the American Populace (see: Christine O'Donnell and Rand Paul).

In two more years TP may have fizzled a bit and the GOP may have some hope of getting a more palatable candidate through the primaries and into the general election, but by then I also believe (on the record, quote me) that the economic picture will be heaps better and that, right or wrong, Obama will benefit from this electorally.


I'm not and I won't state whether or not this is what I'm PULLING for, this is just my take on what I think will happen if I were wagering.

[stebo0728]

As personal opinions go, I dont thing Obama will go another term, BUT, his only chance for this is for the Republicans to capture some kind of control of Congress and/or the Senate. The republicans will serve as a governor on BO's increasingly progressive/social policies. He just might be able to grasp a positive image this way, as Clinton did. Left unchecked by another Democratic controlled congress, he will far exceed Carter in public image, and by 2012 he will be nothing short of a political pariah.

[96Qowner]

I'm pretty sure Hillary will challenge Obama for 2012. She's no friend of his and she almost took the 2008 nomination from him. Democrats would be highly relieved to run Hillary instead of Obama.

Palin is a non-starter as a Presidential candidate. No way. But she'll run for the sake of the public platform, and to influence the Party, and she'd still make a great VP.

[HashiriyaS14]

I would be astounded if any mainline Democratic figure issues a primary challenge to Obama in 2012, but I guess I could be surprised.

[IBCoupe]

I concur with Stebo's conclusion, but I differ with him in my reasoning.

I agree that President Obama would benefit politically from the presence of Republican control of at least one of the houses of Congress (or even from a smaller majority). I reject, however, the premise that the Democratic Party actually controls Congress. They're not nearly that efficient. With 59 Senators, Republicans would have passed whatever they wanted, because (up until the rise of the Tea Party) they're a far more politically cohesive bunch, with clear agendas and minimal internal disagreement. Actually, if (and it's a big "if") the Tea Party manages to retain its prominence in the Republican Party, you may see a shift away from that - the Republican Party may start to look a lot more like the Democratic Party in that, before they even begin to compromise with external opposition, they must first start to reconcile the internal opposition.

I think a Republican-controlled Congress would give President Obama only a political improvement - I think the substance of the passed laws would be entirely the same. Indeed, I think his policies would have been the same as they have been, had there been a greater Republican presence since he took office. There's a lot of media focus on the "leftiness" of the President's policies because of the opposition on the right, and the lack of Republican power has created an opportunity for clever image-crafters to say that the policies have been more left than they actually have been. In reality, there's been probably just as much criticism on the left because President Obama has been seen to have compromised with phantom Republicans. Much of the Democratic base was clamoring for a single-payer healthcare plan, modeled on Canada's, but President Obama took it off the table from the very start. Were there a greater Republican presence in government, I expect the compromises would have been the same, and there would have been far fewer opportunities to portray those policies as radical left.

[96Qowner]

Again I remind readers that Congress passes laws, not the President. Obama has no power over Pelosi and Reid other than a veto, which would have been absurd, either as threat or reality.

Republicans may well become a less cohesive Party in 2011, and if it is, Palin will be partly responsible. But she's primarily a rallying figure for anti-socialist Tea Party types. Palin, herself, doesn't have much to offer in the way of policy or analysis.

A Republican House and possibly Senate will be very helpful to Obama, provided he can get away with demonizing their efforts. I'm not so sure that approach will be successful. I think people are weary of that sort of partisanship, something Obama promised to end, and what many Independents are livid about.

[IBCoupe]

The general understanding is that the White House coordinates with Congress to organize policy, and being that President Obama's the head of the Democratic Party, I don't see that as an unreasonable understanding. Yes, technically, Congress creates laws, but if it worked only the way you're phrasing it, Pelosi's (and others') wishes for a single-payer system would not have been completely off the table as they were. If it worked that way, President Bush could have been seen to have absolutely no hand in the PATRIOT ACT.

And the Obama administration doesn't have to demonize the Republican efforts. In fact, I think that would backfire - part of the White House's rhetoric today is that Republicans are opposed to even the most common-sensical of bills, on the grounds that passing them would look like success on the part of President Obama. Were Republicans to show up with greater force and actually participate, I think the White House would be foolish to poo-poo it. Part of what's keeping him alive politically is the fact that Republicans are blatantly opposing things for political, rather than substantive, reasons. When they start showing up with substantive reasons, that won't fly anymore.

Certainly there'd be public discussion as to the merits and the White House might find ways to oppose it, but it won't be the same kind of opposition, and it certainly won't be the demonization in the way that they're currently doing. But I'm not sure that the opposition is a sure thing. President Obama campaigned on cooperation, and, politically moderate as his policies have been, he can let the Republicans have his say and still come out with the same result.

[UpStar]

I'll say no. She will not run, but if she does......

[96Qowner]

The general understanding is that the White House coordinates with Congress to organize policy, and being that President Obama's the head of the Democratic Party, I don't see that as an unreasonable understanding. Yes, technically, Congress creates laws, but if it worked only the way you're phrasing it, Pelosi's (and others') wishes for a single-payer system would not have been completely off the table as they were. If it worked that way, President Bush could have been seen to have absolutely no hand in the PATRIOT ACT.

Yes, that's indeed the general understanding, but it just isn't true unless the President has some sort of power over Congressional leadership. Obama has no such power and never will, now. Remember, no one cared how Obama voted when he was a Senator. Nobody owes him anything at all. Pelosi and Reid did whatever they wanted to do, whatever Democrats would go along with. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Of course, some people believe that when Obama says jump, Nancy and Harry jump. It'd be hard to find any evidence of that. It's simply expedient for both Parties to attribute legislation to the President.

[IBCoupe]

Riiiiight. I think the simpler theory is that the Executive works with the Legislative. I mean, unless we're all willing to accept that Congress takes all the blame for starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody owes him anything at all.

I bet they'd sure like him to come out in favor of their agenda, though, huh?

[AZhitman]

I'll say no. She will not run, but if she does......

You must be mentally exhausted after that brilliant piece of insightfulness.

[Bubba1]

I'll say no. She will not run, but if she does......

You must be mentally exhausted after that brilliant piece of insightfulness.

I know it's early, but I have a feeling NJ's governor Chris Christie might make a run for the Republican nominee for POTUS.

[IBCoupe]

Interesting theory. What leads you to that?

[Bubba1]

Interesting theory. What leads you to that?

He's been stepping up his appearances on national cable talk shows recently, which seems to indicate a desire to increase his national visiibility (and promoting his tough guy, budget cutting personna). He also announced he's making a big political trip to Iowa next month (to campaign for a gov candidate). Iowa just happens to be home to be the first big Presidential Caucus.

Since he's relatively scandal free, there is local speculation that he (and/or the RNC) might have higher aspirations for him than what has been said on record.

[heliochrome85]

Oh look, here is Gov. Christie saving the day!
http://gawker.com/5646257/chivalrous-ch ... ing-madman

shouldnt he be governing his state? or is the Governor of NJ a largely ceremonial position given that the majority of power is held in the back offices of ladyclubs like Bada-Bing, and Porkstores?


on a side note, Sil is a god amongst men.


being on the sopranos was his hobby, since he is really steven van zandt, who is in Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band...

[AZhitman]

shouldnt he be governing his state? or is the Governor of NJ a largely ceremonial position given that the majority of power is held in the back offices of ladyclubs like Bada-Bing, and Porkstores?

Haven't you heard?

The new "in" thing, when you get elected, is to go on lots of daytime talk shows, take lots of vacations, and play a lot of golf.

I've heard it makes you immune to accountability and deflects a LOT of criticism.

[heliochrome85]

ah, no i hadnt heard.

but did you hear, apparently taking interviews by established news sources is now out of style. i guess people dont need to hear your views.
eg, O'Donnell, Palin, Angle


also, lets remember that o'donnell was a witch. oh, and no masturbating. that she is a serious contender for office is not only a disgrace to our system, but to our country.

[UpStar]

I'll say no. She will not run, but if she does......

You must be mentally exhausted after that brilliant piece of insightfulness.

Stop jabbering like a beotch! Take 4 of these & wipe yourself clean when its all over. You are starting to remind me of that kid who got his a$$ kicked for talking too much.

[heliochrome85]

im fairly certain, that in the pages of colloquial history, one would find that "Beotch" was used exclusively by bitchy women. just sayin'

[AZhitman]

You are starting to remind me of that kid who got his a$$ kicked for talking too much.

...the difference is, I never got my a$$ kicked. And I'm usually right, especially when I'm clobbering your ill-conceived posts.

You remind me of the snooty cheerleader I met at a desert party in college. I PIIHB and made her walk home.