Poor, Pitiful Palin

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Liberals aren't afraid of her. They love her as a punching bag.

If they would ignore her she would be more marginalized. IMHO, the more attention they give her the more hard core right wings flock to her just to piss off the left. I think she may have a chance to get into the senate or house but that is about it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...
After her departure from Alaska, we can dismiss any possibility that she would be on a national ticket. She is a highly divisive figure, either deeply loved or deeply hated; and furthermore she will remain a generally poor candidate, not cut out for a national campaign. This is now a cash run.

I agree it is highly unlikely but not impossible.

With the way that Republican primaries are structured in many states -- winner take all the delegates (as opposed to the Democratic primaries with proportional delegates) --and with the right advisors and a shit-load of money (she is currently the best fund raiser for Republicans), she could win in some front end states with 30something% in a field of 4-5 primary candidates, build momentum and roll, baby roll to the convention!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I agree it is highly unlikely but not impossible.

With the way that Republican primaries are structured in many states -- winner take all the delegates (as opposed to the Democratic primaries with proportional delegates) --and with the right advisors and a shit-load of money (she is currently the best fund raiser for Republicans), she could win in some front end states with 30something% in a field of 4-5 primary candidates, build momentum and roll, baby roll to the convention!

It would never happen, no matter how much you would love it.

[classicman]

Liberals love her - she's worth millions of votes . . . for them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It would never happen, no matter how much you would love it.

I bet between now and 2012, we will see the Republican leaders urge the state parties to change to a proportional voting system for the primaries to prevent even the remotest possibility of such an outcome.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I bet between now and 2012, we will see the Republican leaders urge the state parties to change to a proportional voting system for the primaries to prevent even the remotest possibility of such an outcome.

Why?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why?

Simple...because proportional allocation of delegates prevents any one candidate, like a Palin or a Tea-Bagger, with the most and energized active base, winning all the delegates from states with only a plurality, but not a majority, of support from within their own party.

On a more general level, it also extends the primaries to give every state a voice...which, btw, was the reason the Democratic race between Hillary and Obama went to the very end.

[SamIam]

I think Palin is high comedy. You can never lose, though, by betting on the stupidity of American voters.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Simple...because proportional allocation of delegates prevents any one candidate, like a Palin or a Tea-Bagger winning states with only a plurality, but not a majority, of support from within their own party.

On a more general level, it also extends the primaries to give every state a voice...which, btw, was the reason the Democratic race between Hillary and Obama went to the very end.

That is not necessary for the process to move forward fairly.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is not necessary for the process to move forward fairly.

It is not necessary, but it provide more fairness.

Personally, I never understood the value of a winner-take-all system, that enables a candidate to win a state when the majority of the party voters in that state did not support that candidate.

But, hey, the party can chose what every system they like.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is not necessary, but it provide more fairness.

Personally, I never understood the value of a winner-take-all system, that enables a candidate to win a state when the majority of the party voters in that state did not support that candidate.

That is your opinion. Do you want to see us abandon the Electoral College as well?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Do you want to see us abandon the Electoral College as well?

Nope.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Liberals love her as a punching bag.
...

But the big difference between Palin and a punching bag is the punching bag doesn't run head first into the fist.

[Shawnee123]

I think ut wants to marry her and have like ten thousand of her babies.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If they would ignore her she would be more marginalized. IMHO, the more attention they give her the more hard core right wings flock to her just to piss off the left. I think she may have a chance to get into the senate or house but that is about it.

There are still a lot of roles she can fulfill, depending on how split the Republican party is. She could be doing this for cash, as UT suggests, and then use her influence for support of a candidate she personally endorses. If she tells her base that "candidate X" is a good choice, there is a good chance her base will support that candidate. Another scenario is that she may make a presidential run solely to try to influence the race. Even if she will lose, she will have a large influence on the race and her political opponents will be forced to fill the voter vacuum when she drops out, making the winning candidate closer to her views then if she didn't run. She could also be delusional.