Sarah Palin considering 2012 Presidential run!!!

Shalamar said:
IF she wins the Republican Nomination. Even then, I doubt she would guarantee a Democrat win.
Click to expand...

you underestimate Palin's idiocy.

she couldn't stop calling Joe Biden "O'Biden", for Christ's sake!!!!

:p

Palin 2012 is a Democrat's dream come true.
 
I hope that by then the Teabaggers are strong enough to think that they can be an effective third party. It would draw off the nutbar vote, including the religious whackadoodles, crippling the GOP.
 
parky76 said:
Sarah, you are my dream come true. You, and you alone, can insure Obama a 2nd term, and Democratic control of the White House through 2016!!!
Click to expand...

Interesting. You have a president in power, yet it falls on a potential candidate of the opposition - and not him - to insure his second term. To add insult to injury, you speak of his second term as if it were a good thing.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Interesting. You have a president in power, yet it falls on a potential candidate of the opposition - and not him - to insure his second term. To add insult to injury, you speak of his second term as if it were a good thing.
Click to expand...

yes. a 2nd Obama term would be much better than 1 Palin term. she would bring about Armageddon.
 
I seriously doubt Sarah will run. As soon as someone made a serious issue of how her last job ended, she'd be toast, and she is at least smart enough to know that. Besides, she's having too much fun (and making too much money) being the darling of the extreme right to want to do anything else.
 
leftysergeant said:
I hope that by then the Teabaggers are strong enough to think that they can be an effective third party. It would draw off the nutbar vote, including the religious whackadoodles, crippling the GOP.
Click to expand...

It sounds like if that happens it would split even the Tea Party movement--the ones who see it as a party from those who see it only as a loosely-organized movement.

Either way, it would split the Republican Party. (Yeah yeah--I'm sure people who would otherwise vote Democratic would vote for a Tea Party candidate, just as Nader took a few votes from Bush in 2000.)

Unfortunately, I think a substantial chunk of self-identified Tea Party members think of themselves as helping Republican candidates rather than endorsing a new third party.
 
Tricky said:
I seriously doubt Sarah will run. As soon as someone made a serious issue of how her last job ended, she'd be toast, and she is at least smart enough to know that. Besides, she's having too much fun (and making too much money) being the darling of the extreme right to want to do anything else.
Click to expand...

This is my take as well. She ended her actual political career (not pundit career) the moment she quit her job.
 
McHrozni said:
Interesting. You have a president in power, yet it falls on a potential candidate of the opposition - and not him - to insure his second term.
Click to expand...

With the Whackadoodle from the Tundra as opposition, there would be less need for campaign funding for the POTUS and more available to replace the blue dogs with real Democrats and Republicans with Democrats. Just saying that life is so much easier when your man is running against a total clown.

To add insult to injury, you speak of his second term as if it were a good thing.
Click to expand...

But of course it would be. The alternative would probably be some nut bar who thinks that we need to go back to the Reagan policies. Given the homage that the GOP paid to the old jellybrain at their last convention, that would be just about any Republican of national status.
 
parky76 said:
yes. a 2nd Obama term would be much better than 1 Palin term. she would bring about Armageddon.
Click to expand...

No argument about Obama being a better choice than Palin. That being said, bringing about Armageddon is a bit over the top.

That wasn't my argument, however. If you believe Obama is a good president, he really shouldn't need an exceptionally easy opponent to run against. Your OP comes off as a bit of a Freudian slip, really - you know he's rather poor, and to get reelected he needs someone like Palin on the other side.
I tend to agree - generally speaking it's a bad idea to continue policies you explicitly ran against in order to win. Obama is doing just that and more in many critical areas. What will he run on in 2012 anyway? "Change you were right to believe in and will be delivered on the second try!" or maybe "Yes we could and now we will! ?

McHrozni
 
leftysergeant said:
But of course it would be. The alternative would probably be some nut bar who thinks that we need to go back to the Reagan policies. Given the homage that the GOP paid to the old jellybrain at their last convention, that would be just about any Republican of national status.
Click to expand...

You must have mistaken "good" for "bad, but not as bad as the alternative". Do you need that explained, or can you look it up yourself?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
You must have mistaken "good" for "bad, but not as bad as the alternative". Do you need that explained, or can you look it up yourself?
Click to expand...

We never get perfect. Better than being bit by a rattlesnake is good enough.
 
McHrozni said:
No argument about Obama being a better choice than Palin. That being said, bringing about Armageddon is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

i disagree. with her level of political sophistication, closeted fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and lack of historical knowledge, she could very well indeed make a decision dealing with international affairs that could lead to a world-wide disaster.

I am not joking.
 
Shalamar said:
IF she wins the Republican Nomination. Even then, I doubt she would guarantee a Democrat win.
Click to expand...

Part of the democrats' problem is their idea that if they only point out to people just how stupid the Republican candidate is, they're guaranteed victory. This never works: look at how it did against, say, Reagan or Bush or Nixon. Indeed, usually, the "dumber" or "evil" the Democrats are conviced a candidate is, the higher chances he has of winning.

That's because the other guy's "stupidity", like their own guy's "brilliance", is more often than not merely their own media's hype -- and the democrats, convinced of their infinite superiority, then make the mistake of believing their own propaganda, the first stage to political ruin.

Let us assume for the moment Obama does badly as a first-term president, and that Palin wins the Republican nomination -- both by no means certain things, of course. If, then, the democrats run on parky's campaign: "How can you vote for such a stupid broad when you have our brilliant guy? Are you nuts?", it would practically guarantee a Republican landslide.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
I seriously doubt Sarah will run. As soon as someone made a serious issue of how her last job ended, she'd be toast, and she is at least smart enough to know that. Besides, she's having too much fun (and making too much money) being the darling of the extreme right to want to do anything else.
Click to expand...

I'm with Tricky on this one.
 
Why not hope for the best people to be candidates, instead of hoping for one to be bad to hopefully ensure easy victory of another?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom